Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:609 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22848 of 2017 Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Maurya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Rural Developmentandors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ninnie Shrivastava,Rajendra Prasad Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 29.05.2017, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, passed by the respondent No.4 whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected. 3. Perusal of the said order would indicate that the claim of the petitioner for the regularization has been rejected on the ground of financial incapacity of District Rural Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "DRDA"). 4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been working since decades with the DRDA. Vide order dated 18.07.2016, a copy of which is Annexure-9 to the petition, the DRDA has now merged with the Department of Rural Development. 5. Even prior to the merger of the department, the State Government vide its order dated 21.12.2016, a copy of which is part of Annexure- 10 to the petition (Page-29), had required the Commissioner, Rural Development to send the details of those persons, who are working on daily wages or work charge or on contract with the DRDA so as to create supernumerary posts. 6. The contention is that when the petitioners staked their claim for regularization, the same has been rejected vide the impugned order by indicating that as 25% financial assistance is given by the State Government and 75% assistance is given by the Central Government to the DRDA consequently the DRDA would be unable to bear the financial assistance for the regularization. 7. The argument is that once the DRDA itself stands merged with the Rural Development Department in July, 2016 and further even prior to it, the State Government had required the Commissioner, Village Development to send the list of persons who are working on contract or daily wages as such the DRDA, once it has no existence of its own considering the merger of 18.07.2016, patently exceeded its jurisdiction in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularization and that claim for regularization should be considered by the competent authority considering the order dated 21.12.2016 issued by the State Government. 8. Responding to that, Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel does not dispute that the DRDA now stands merged with the Rural Development Department as well as order of State Government dated 21.12.2016. However, he further states that the services of the petitioners had been dispensed with in September, 2016. 9. Responding to that, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in Writ Petition No.24559(SS) of 2016 In re Shiv Kumar Maurya And Another vs State of U.P. & Ors, this Court vide order dated 11.05.2017 had recorded the undertaking of the Project Director, DRDA, Faizabad who was present, to take back the petitioners in service in terms of the interim order that had been passed in the said case and further, that employees have been absorbed in the Rural Development Department, Government of U.P. and considering this, the writ Court had directed that the petitioners shall be paid remuneration as was being paid earlier subject to further order in the petition and if they are found entitled to be considered for regularization under the new Rules of 2016, they would be considered and pendency of the writ petition would not come in the way. 10. The aforesaid argument pertaining to the services of the petitioners having been dispensed with may not detain the court inasmuch as the respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularization have not indicated this aspect of the matter rather the ground as indicated by them of financial incapacity is patently belied from the department itself having merged with the Rural Development Department and the order of the State Government asking for details for the purpose of creation of supernumerary posts. 11. Even otherwise, the petitioners have been working since long and the State being a model employer is expected to consider the grievance of the petitioners for their regularisation as per the rules. 12. Considering the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 29.05.2017, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition is quashed. The competent authority is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization in accordance with law under relevant rules considering the order dated 21.12.2016 as issued by the State Government. 13. Let such a consideration be done within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 prateek Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench