MUNNA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. DEPTT. OF BASIC EDUCATION U.P. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS
WRIA/10459/2025 · 2025-09-09
Abdul Moin
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 163571 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 163571 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10459 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jitendra Pal, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1 & 2, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and Sri Net Ram, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner, who claims to be working as a part-time sweeper since 01.12.1993 and having rendered almost 32 years of service, is before this Court raising a challenge to the order dated 21.05.2025, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, passed by Respondent No.4, whereby his claim for regularization has been rejected. The grounds of rejection, as emerge from the said order, are that (a) the petitioner is working on a part-time basis on a fixed pay, and (b) there are no regularization rules for the regularization of part-timers. 3. At the very outset, Sri Net Ram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 states that as the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected, as such, he may be granted time to file a counter affidavit. 4. Once the reasons for rejection of the claim of the petitioner duly emerge from a perusal of the order itself, as indicated above, consequently, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851, the said reasons cannot be supplemented or supplanted by any reasons that may come in the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Tushar Bhushan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Net Ram, Ran Vijay Singh Munna .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Education U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
counter affidavit. Thus, this Court does not find any necessity for filing of a counter affidavit by the respondent No.4. 5. The fact of the matter remains that the petitioner has been working since the year 1993 on a part-time basis; he is stated to have been working continuously as per the learned counsel for the petitioner and his claim for regularization has been rejected on the aforesaid two grounds. 6.
Whether the aforesaid two grounds taken by the respondents, i.e., (a) the petitioner working on a part-time basis, and (b) there being no rules for regularization of part-timers, can be considered to be valid grounds is no longer res integra, having been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, AIR 2025 SC 296, as well as in the case of Dharam Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others, MANU/SC/1111/2025. 7. In the case of Jaggo (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the case of part-timers and held that the claim for regularization has to be considered. 8. In the case of Dharam Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering the long period of service rendered by the employees, held that even if there are no rules for regularization, yet the State, being a Model State and a Welfare State, is required to consider such persons who have worked for a sufficiently long time for the purpose of regularization. 9. Sri Net Ram, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4, has been unable to controvert the legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 21.05.2025, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, is set aside. 11. The respondent No.4 is directed to pass a fresh order on the claim of the petitioner for regularization keeping in view the discussion made above as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) and Dharam Singh (supra). WRIA No. 10459 of 2025 2
12. Let such an order be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
September 9, 2025 cks/- WRIA No. 10459 of 2025 3 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench