Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89335-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 645 of 2017 Appellant :- Raja Ram Singh Fitter Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Dilip Kumar Upadhyay,Parmatma Nand Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra,Vimlesh Kumar Rai Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.14922 of 2016 dated 28.7.2017, wherein following reliefs were sought:- "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 04.02.2015 passed by Executive Engineer (respondent No.4) (Annexure No.16 of the writ petition). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the concerned authority to regularize the services of the petitioner from the due date (1990), when the juniors to the petitioner have been regularized. (c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to release the salary of petitioner for the post Fitter since December 1986 up to January, 2011 with interest and other consequential service benefits, for which he is entitled in the eye of law." 2. Learned Single Judge has noticed that the writ petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage in 1980 onwards. However, he came to be implicated in a criminal case in 1986 and he was apparently sent to jail. The criminal proceedings remained pending and ultimately he has been acquitted by the competent court in 2011. The appellant thereafter applied for appointment and the employer U.P. Jal Nigam again offered him engagement on casual basis. Such engagement continued till the appellant attained the age of superannuation in 2017. The petitioner while in service claimed benefit of regularization which was rejected by the authorities on 4.2.2015. It was in this context that the prayer was made for appellant to be regularized in service from 1990 when his juniors were so regularized. 3. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that engagement of appellant was on daily wage and since he had admittedly not worked from 1986 to 2011, for no fault of the employer, as such this period cannot be taken into consideration for grant of any relief to the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant emphatically argues that the persons junior to appellant were regularized in service while his candidature was overlooked for no fault of the appellant. It is also submitted that the appellant is entitled to be regularized in service from the date when his juniors were granted liberty and he is also entitled to received retiral benefits including pension etc. 5. Sri V.K. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the Jal Nigam opposes the claim for the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge in his judgment. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials placed on record. 7. It remains undisputed that the appellant's engagement was on daily wage from 1980 onwards. In 1986 his engagement on daily wage came to be discontinued on account of appellant's incarceration in jail pursuant to his implication in a criminal case. The appellant has ultimately been acquitted in 2011. The acquittal is a clean acquittal. The employer thereafter has engaged the appellant till he attained the age of superannuation. The short question that arises for our consideration in the facts of the present case is as to whether the period from 1986 to 2011 is liable to be counted towards the grant of service benefits to the appellant or not? 8. Admittedly, engagement of appellant in 1980 was on daily wage basis. He continued as such till 1986. After 1986 the appellant has not worked due to his implication in the criminal case. The fact that appellant has not worked from 1986 to 2011 is not due to any fault of the appellant. The nature of engagement of appellant was not such that the daily wage engagement of appellant between 1980 to 1986 could confer him any right to the post nor he held any lien etc. In such circumstances, the period between 1986 to 2011 cannot be reckoned for the purposes of grant of any service benefit to the appellant. He would also not be entitled to regularization from 1990 as was prayed before learned Single Judge. Since his working was dis-ruptured, those who were regularized had apparently continued in service and were entitled to regularization on the basis of policy decision taken in that regard. Neither the appellant's claim was covered under any rules or policy for regularization nor any law is shown under which period of working between 1986 to 2011 can be counted for grant of service benefits. In that view of the matter, we do not find any substance in the present appeal which, consequently, fails and is dismissed. 9. It is, however, provided that if on the strength of admitted working of appellant he is entitled to any benefit in the nature of gratuity etc such claim shall be adverted to by the employer by passing appropriate orders within a period of two months. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 RA Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad