Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111632 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1775 of 2020 Petitioner :- Lakhan Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Archit Mandhyan,Brijesh Kumar Tripathi,Prabha Shanker Pandey,Prem Narayan Rai,Shariq Shamim Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Shri Archit Madhyan, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 25.03.2019 whereby his claim for regularization has been rejected on the group D post of Mali. 3. It is argued that though the petitioner was not working on the cut off date under the 2016 rules, but earlier he discharged his duties in the year 1991, 1992 and then again in the year 1997 and 1998 and also for certain period in the year 2011, 2012 and 2013 and yet respondents have not taken into consideration such a period of duty at the time Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Department on Group C and Group D Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 (for short the Rules, 2016) came into force. It is also contended that petitioner cannot be blamed for the break given to him time to time and as such the period when petitioner was not allotted work, should be taken as artificial breaks to regularize services of petitioner under the relevant rules. 4. On the contrary it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ravi Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and others 2009 SCConline All 915 a daily wager seeking regularization under the Rules 2016, should have been working on the cut off date prescribed under Rules and should also be working on the date when the Rules came into force. It is argued that it may not be necessary for a Group D employee to have continuously discharged duties from the cut off date till the coming into force of the Rules but on the relevant date he should be working. Relevant paragraph of the judgment relied upon is reproduced hereunder: "12. For the purpose of attracting the Rules, 2001 the mere initial appointment on a date prior to 29.06.1991 is not conclusive but what it requires is that the incumbent must have been engaged prior to 29.06.1991 and must have continued on the date of commencement of Rules, 2001, i.e., 21.12.2001. Further, that a vacancy temporary or permanent was also available on the date of commencement of Rules, 2001 whereagainst the said incumbent could been considered for regularisation. The respondents have clearly pleaded that the petitioner was engaged in December, 1992 and that date is also mentioned in the seniority list, Annexure-CA-1 to the counter affidavit, which has not been challenged by the petitioner. No material except Annexure-1 to the writ petition has been placed on record to show that the petitioner was engaged prior to 29.06.1991. Annexure-1 to the writ petition, once has already been amended and the date mentioned therein has been changed, unless the amended order is challenged, no relief can be granted ignoring the said order. " 5. In the case of Janardhan Yadav v. State of U.P. (2008) 1 UPLBEC 498 vide paragraph 8 the Court has held thus: "The said stand is contrary to the Rules and it amounts to reading certain words in Rule 4(1) which is not provided therein by the Rule framing authority. The rule framing authority has not framed the aforesaid Rules in manner as are being read by the respondents. Since the Rules are applicable only to daily wage employees, the Rules framing authority was aware that such employee could not have worked continuously throughout and, therefore, has clearly provided that the engagement must be before 29.6.1991 and he is continuing as such on the date of commencement of the Rules. If a daily wage engagement has been made before 29.6.2001 and 2as continuing on 21.12.2001, meaning thereby the daily wage engagement remained necessity of the department or the requirement thereof for more than 10 years, for such a person only, the benefit of regularization under 2001 Rules has been provided, and it nowhere requires further that the incumbent must have worked continuously form the date of initial engagement till the commencement of these Rules and to read these words would amount to legislation, which is not permissible in law. While interpreting the statute, it is well settled that neither any work shall be added nor be subtracted but if a plain reading of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the same has to be followed as such. This Court does not find any ambiguity in Rule-4(1) providing as to which kind of persons would be entitled for regularization and it nowhere requires that the incumbent must have worked throughout from the date of initial engagement till the date of commencement of Rules ". (emphasis added) 6. Upon a pointed query being made, learned counsel for petitioner could not dispute that neither on the cut off date given under the rules, nor on the date of coming into force of the rules petitioner was found working as daily wager with the respondent establishment. 7. In view of the above and in the light of the principle of law laid down for the purposes of regularization under the relevant rules in the authority cited above, I do not find the respondent concerned to have committed manifest error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization. 8. Petition is held to be devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Nadeem Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad