Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45560-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 244 of 2019 Appellant :- Sushil Kumar Kaushal Respondent :- State of U.P. through. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. and others. Counsel for Appellant :- Subhas Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Pratul Kumar Srivastava (S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. I.A.No.71381 of 2019 1. This intracourt appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the writ court in Writ Petition No.2836 (S/S) of 2013 (Shushil Kumar Kaushal Vs. State of U.P. and others) whereby the petitioner's prayer for regularization of his services was declined. 2. The instant appeal is reported to be barred by 253 days. Learned counsel for the appellant while pressing the application for condonation of delay submits that the petitioner belongs to a financially disadvantaged section of the society and it took time for him to arrange for the expenses and the fee, which resulted in delay. 3. Learned counsel for the State-respondent Shri Pratul Kumar Srivastava did not seriously oppose the application seeking condonation of delay. However, it was urged that the matter be considered and decided on merits. 4. Considering the ground shown in the affidavit accompanying the application seeking condonation of delay, this Court observes that even though the cause may not have been very well explained, nevertheless, in order to do substantial justice the cause shown is found sufficient and accordingly the delay is condoned. The application for condoning the delay is allowed. The intracourt appeal shall be deemed to have been filed within time. Office to allot a regular number to this appeal. On merits 5. The appellant who was the writ petitioner had filed a writ seeking certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 08.05.2007 whereby the representation of the petitioner for regularization of his service was rejected by the competent authority. Further relief in the nature of mandamus was sought seeking direction for the opposite parties to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer and also to determine the seniority of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment on the post of Junior Engineer. 6. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the petitioner was a diploma holder and was appointed on 16.07.1993 and since then he has been working as a Junior Engineer. He relied upon a certificate issued by the Work Superintendent of the Public Works Department (P.W.D.), Unnao, indicating that the appellant had been working as a Work Supervisor in the department since 16.07.1993. 7. It was further contended that the appellant was paid Rs.28 per day when he was initially engaged and this amount was subsequently revised to Rs.60 per day. The contention is that the petitioner had sufficient experience in the department and he was entitled for appointment as a Junior Engineer. 8. Earlier, a writ petition was filed by the members of Berojgar Diploma Engineers Association raising the grievance that the diploma holders working as Supervisors/Amins etc. are entitled to the regular pay scale of Junior Engineers. This writ petition filed by the association bearing Writ Petition No.27367 of 2091. The appellant also filed his own separate Writ Petition bearing No.4266 (S/S) of 1995 which was also connected with the bunch of other writ petitions. 9. The bunch of writ petitions were decided by the Court vide judgment dated 30.11.2004 and while allowing the writ petitions the writ court provided that the petitioners who had filed their writ petitions be considered for regularization under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointment (on the post within the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979. 10. It was further contended that the appellant had made several efforts requesting the competent authority for payment of salary as well as regularization of service, but no attention was paid. The appellant filed another Writ Petition bearing No.2796 (S/S) of 1997 wherein this Court vide order dated 04.10.2006 directed that the petitioner may file a detailed representation to the concerned Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department annexing a copy of the order of the Court dated 30.11.2004 and the authorities were required to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order taking into consideration the observations made in the judgment dated 30.11.2004 and the said exercise was to be completed within a period of two months. 11. The appellant filed his representation which came to be dismissed by means of an order dated 08.05.2007 which was challenged in the writ petition No.2836 (S/S) of 2013 which also came to be dismissed on 21.08.2018 which has been challenged in the instant intracourt appeal. 12. The crux of the submission is that the writ court did not appreciate the fact that the petitioner was appointed on 16.07.1993 which was prior to the cut off date as mentioned in the Amended Rules 2001 and specified as 30.06.1998 and further, the appellant was in continuous in service, hence, he was entitled for regularization and the authorities have incorrectly rejected the representation made by the petitioner vide order impugned dated 08.05.2007, hence, the order passed by the writ court is bad and deserves to be set aside after allowing the instant appeal. 13. Learned Standing Counsel has defended the order passed by the writ court and submitted that even though the appellant may have been appointed prior to the cut off date but the fact remains that there was no material to indicate that the appellant was continuously in service on the date when the Rules of 2001 came to be promulgated i.e. on 20.12.2008, hence the order passed by the writ court cannot be doubted. Hence the appeal is without merit and deserves to be dismissed. 14. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record. 15. There is no dispute between the parties insofar as the fact that the relevant rules for regularization were promulgated on 20.12.2001. It is also not in dispute that as per the rules twin condition have to be met for seeking regularization; (i) that a person must have been appointed prior to the cut of date mentioned in the said rules i.e. 30.06.1998 and (ii) that the said person must have been in continuous service on the date when the said Rules came into force i.e. 20.12.2001. 16. It is in the aforesaid context that if the material on record is perused, it would be found that insofar as the appointment of the petitioner claiming to be since 16.07.1993 is concerned, that is not much in dispute. However, learned counsel for the appellant could not demonstrate or indicate from any material brought on record, either before the authorities or before the writ court to substantiate that the appellant was working continuously till 20.12.2001. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to a certificate said to have been issued by the Supervisor of the department which was brought on record as annexure no.5 to the writ petition indicating that the appellant was working in the department from 16.07.1993. The said certificate does not indicate that the appellant was working till the date the Rules came into force. All that the certificate indicates is and at best can be used, only to a limited extent, to say that appellant may have been working since 16.07.1993 till the date when the said certificate was issued i.e. 07.01.1997. 18. This can only be indicative of the fact that the appellant was working since 16.07.1993 that is prior to the cut off date i.e. 30.06.1998 but it cannot be presumed or inferred that the appellant was working on the date when the Rules came into force that is 20.12.2001. Thus, placing heavy reliance on the said certificate does not come to the aid of the appellant. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant feebly attempted to refer to certain other documents to indicate that the name of the appellant was included in the muster roll to suggest that the appellant was working on the date when the Rules came into force, also does not impress this Court as those documents do not substantiate the aforesaid fact. 20. A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the appellant as to the fact that if the appellant was continuous in service, then there would have been several documents by virtue of which it could be established that the appellant was working such as salary slips or the transfer of the amount of salary in the bank account of the appellant but no such document could be pointed out. No corroborative evidence was brought on record to substantiate the fact as to whether the appellant was working on 20.12.2001. 21. On the other hand, a categorical finding recorded by the department authorities that the appellant was not working on the date when the Rules came into force and it has been upheld by the writ court. 22. In the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary, the findings recorded by the department as well as the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. 23. For the aforesaid reasons, the appellant could not substantiate the fact that he was working continuously till 20.12.2001, hence he cannot claim the benefit of the Rules for regularization. 24. In view of the above, this Court does not find that there is any any error in the judgment passed by the writ court, hence the appeal is sans merit. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21.08.2018 in Writ Petition No.2836 (S/S) of 2013 is affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 ank (Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench