SHRI RAM SINGH @ SHAMSHER SINGH AND 2 OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS
WRIA/7331/2025 · 2025-06-30
Mayur Jain Jt Registrar J Listing
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 61481 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 61481 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101307 Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7331 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shri Ram Singh @ Shamsher Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arya Suman Pandey,Vikash Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ajay Singh,Hem Pratap Singh,Pooja Agarwal,Rahul Jain Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
1. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers:-
"(a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to consider the petitioner's case for regularization in the light of office note/order dated 02.04.2025 issued by respondent nos.2 and 3 enclosed as Annexure no.3 to this writ petition. (b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to consider the petitioners' case for regularization in accordance with the principle laid down in applicable judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court. (c) Issue a writ order or direction of suitable nature to the concerned respondent(s) to provide all consequential monetary benefits including arrears of pay as per the Doctrine of 'Equal pay for Equal work."
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been engaged by the Banaras Hindu University called as 'B.H.U.' i.e. respondent no.2 on a fixed wages on the respective dates for a period of six months as part of up-gradation of the Electronic Private Automatic Branch Exchange (for short "EPABX") under the orders of the Vice-Chancellor. The said appointments were made under the Development Scheme No.2005 under IX Plan. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners' payments were being made out of seasonal staff grant w.e.f. 15.02.2000 as per the recommendations of the Telecommunication Service Committee. It is further submitted that the petitioners were given extension from time to
time up to 15.05.2002. He further submitted that vide order dated 16.05.2002, Vice Chancellor - respondent no.2 passed the order as
"Approved on job contract basic in view of the technical nature of the job". 4. In pursuance of the said order of the Vice-Chancellor, petitioners were engaged for a period of three months w.e.f. 25.05.2002 on contract basis. The term of the petitioners have been extended from time to time.
It is also submitted that a committee was constituted to consider the case of regularization of daily wage/contract workers working in the University vide Notification No.AB/7-MC/VS/SCS/28547-557 dated 26.09.2013. The committee has held a meeting on 21.09.2004 and resolved as under:-
".. the matter be taken by the Administration for regularization of workers working on daily wage basis in the Telephone Exchange." The recommendation of the Telephone Exchange Committee was approved by the Vice-Chancellor on 16.10.2004 and the University thereafter issued a Notification No.AB/GADEPABX-staff/23276- 288 dated 12.08.2005 conveying the conversation of 4 posts. On the basis of University decision they could have been regularized in 2005 itself."
5. The recommendation of the said committee was duly approved by the Vice-Chancellor on 16.10.2004 and thereafter the University issued a Notification No.AB/GADEPABX-staff/23276- 288 dated 12.08.2005 conveying the conversation of 4 posts. It is submitted that on the basis of University decision, the petitioners could have been regularized since 2005, but the said notification was not implemented as yet. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has moved a representation on 13.07.2024 for regularization of service to the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar, B.H.U. and prayed that the services of the petitioners may be regularized as per the decision approved by the Vice-Chancellor on
16.10.2004. He further submitted that the petitioners are working as daily wager for the period more than 27 years continuously and it is also submitted that the services of the petitioners are found satisfactory by respondent no.2. It is also submitted that the committee as constituted for looking the matter of regularization of daily wagers or contractual workers, has already given recommendation, which has been duly approved by the Vice- Chancellor but the same has not been implemented yet, therefore,
the petitioners herein praying for regularization of services of the petitioners in view of the resolutions of the said committee as stated above.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has made innocuous prayer that respondent nos.2 and 3 may be directed to consider the representation and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, expeditiously. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 vehemently opposed the petition on merit, but has not opposed the prayer as made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 8. Heard Mr. Saurabh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Ms. Roshani Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Mrs. Pooja Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 and perused the contents made in the writ petition. 9. Without entering into merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the innocuous prayer of the petitioners as no objection made on behalf of learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3. The petitioners are directed to file a fresh representation along with the present writ petition and the order to the competent authority within two weeks. After receiving the said representation, the competent authority is directed to decide the representation in accordance with law taking into consideration of the office note/order dated 02.04.2025 issued by respondent nos.2 and 3 i.e. the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar (Administration) Non-teaching of the said University, respectively and comments of the Principal, if there is no other impediment, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving of the said representation. 10. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. . (Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Atul Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad