Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4471 (ALL)

Jamuna Prasad Nigam v. State of U. P.

2026-04-07

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

body2026
JUDGMENT : SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri. Daya Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.2, and Sri Yashwant Singh, learned Standing Counsel. 2. Present writ petition was filed in the year 2009 and no interim order was granted and finally it is decided after more than 17 years by present judgment. 3. Petitioners, five in numbers have approached this Court in the year 2009 that they were working since 1990 as Awazdar Karmchari, ¼,otnkj½ on daily wage to undertake work of a Switch Man, in absence of regular Switchman. 4. It was further case of petitioners that though they worked for 30 days in a month, but were paid salary for only of 10 days, though said assertion remained without any supportive material as well as why any objection was not taken during last 19 years. 5. It was further case of petitioners that respondent Kanpur Nagar Nigam had prepared a seniority list of ‘Awazdar’, but respondents have adopted a pick and choose policy to regularize junior Awazdars, ignoring petitioners despite senior in said list. 6. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioners have earlier approached this Court when respondents were contemplating for a recruitment process for appointment of Switchman against vacant posts that before any such recruitment process commenced, petitioners’ case for regularization be considered in terms of Government Order dated 10.7.2003 read with U.P. Daily Wage Employees (Regularization of Group ‘D’ Post) Rules, 2001 (in brief ‘Rules, 2001’). 7. The Writ Petition No.28786 of 2003, filed earlier by similarly situated persons was disposed of vide an order dated 14.8.2003. Subsequently, another Writ Petition No.15292 of 2006 was filed which was also disposed of vide an order dated 21.3.2006 with a direction that cases of petitioners and others, be considered for regularization in terms of aforesaid ‘Rules 2001’. 8. In pursuance of above referred orders, cases of petitioners and others were considered, however, their respective claim for regularization was rejected on a ground that they do not fall within ambit of ‘Rules, 2001’ and they have worked as daily wagers for not more than 10 days in a month and accordingly have not worked for 240 days in a year and therefore, they were not ‘daily wagers’. It was also mentioned that no seniority list in terms of any service rules was prepared for Awazdars and no procedure was undertaken to regularize any Awazdar independently or from purported list. No Awazdar was appointed against any substantive post. For reference, relevant part of the order is reproduced hereinafter: (Emphasis supplied) 9. Above referred order dated 2.2.2009 was under challenge in the present writ petition, by petitioner’s who are 5 in numbers. 10. Admittedly, petitioners have not worked after 2006 and no interim order was granted in the present writ petition, therefore it would be a major adverse factor even if petitioners make out a case that they can be considered for regularization. 11. In the present case pleadings were exchanged and this Court has passed several orders for filing affidavits for providing relevant informations such as seniority list, manner of regularization, manner of selections etc. For reference, relevant orders being orders dated 3.11.2025, 19.11.2025 and 3.12.2025 are reproduced hereinafter: Order dated 03.11.2025 “Heard Mr. Daya Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, who are five in number, were appointed as Awazdar/Switchman (Daily Wager) in the respondents? department in the year 1990 for the purpose of regularization, as required under law. A seniority list was subsequently prepared by the department in the year 1994, wherein petitioner no.1 was placed at serial no.74 with the date of registration as 25.09.1990; petitioner no.2 at serial no.72, registered on 10.08.1990; petitioner no.3 at serial no.27, registered on 01.06.1987; petitioner no.4 at serial no.31, registered on 12.12.1987; and petitioner no.5 at serial no.52, registered on 10.05.1990. When the persons junior to the petitioners were regularized, the petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ petition, wherein a direction was issued to the authorities concerned to consider the grievance of the petitioners. The names of the juniors who were regularized have been mentioned as Kamal Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Ramesh Chandra, Daya Ram, Subhash Chandra, Pradeep Kumar, Kishan Lal, Jagdish Kannojia, Rajendra Kumar, Lalji Ram, Tamas, Sarju Prasad, Kuldeep, Arun Kumar, Kripa Shanker, Ramesh Chandra, and Shailendra Singh. The names of the juniors who were regularized have been mentioned as Kamal Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Ramesh Chandra, Daya Ram, Subhash Chandra, Pradeep Kumar, Kishan Lal, Jagdish Kannojia, Rajendra Kumar, Lalji Ram, Tamas, Sarju Prasad, Kuldeep, Arun Kumar, Kripa Shanker, Ramesh Chandra, and Shailendra Singh. Pursuant to the order passed by the writ Court, the petitioners submitted representations before the authorities concerned, however, without passing any orders on the said representations, the respondents prepared two seniority lists, one comprising those who were permitted to continue as daily wagers in the department, and the other consisting of those who were stopped from performing their duties after filing of the earlier writ petition. The respondents, thereafter, have passed the impugned order without considering the fact that although the petitioners were permitted to work as daily wagers for 30 days but payment was made only for 10 days, showing it merely as an arrangement to fill in for any Switchman who was absent for any reason. Despite this, it has been stated that the petitioners were not working as daily wagers. On a specific query as raised by the Court to learned counsel for the respondents, as to how it can be said that the petitioners were not working as daily wagers when in the first seniority list as issued in the year 1994 their names find place and persons from the same list have already been regularized. To the aforesaid, Mr. Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents, requests for two weeks' time to obtain instructions in the matter. List on 19.11.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall be at liberty to make a mention for the matter to be taken up on the said date. Order dated 19.11.2025 In compliance of order dated 03.11.2025, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed, which does not mention the details of the juniors who were regularized, nor the category in which such regularization was made. It also does not contain any list showing the names of the persons whose cases were placed for consideration of regularization. This Court finds that the instructions on the basis of which supplementary counter affidavit has been filed is not proper. In these circumstances, respondent no.2, Nagar Ayukta, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur, is directed to remain present before this Court along with the entire records and to file an affidavit in respect of the aforesaid issues. List on 03.12.2025. This Court finds that the instructions on the basis of which supplementary counter affidavit has been filed is not proper. In these circumstances, respondent no.2, Nagar Ayukta, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur, is directed to remain present before this Court along with the entire records and to file an affidavit in respect of the aforesaid issues. List on 03.12.2025. Registrar (Compliance) as well as Mr. Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents shall look into compliance of this order. Order dated 03.12.2025 In compliance of earlier order of this Court dated 19.11.2025, respondent no.2, Nagar Ayukta, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur, namely, Arpit Upadhyaya is present before this Court and has filed compliance affidavit in the Court today, which is taken on record. Perusal of the compliance affidavit goes to show that though, the appointment letters of the persons named in the order dated 3.11.2025 have been annexed but the records pertaining to the Selection Committee and order passed by Mukhya Nagar Adhikari dated 10.01.2000, explaining the procedure of absorption and the manner of appointment has not been placed before this Court. Thus, the query of the Court still remains unanswered. On the aforesaid, Mr. M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-Nagar Nigam requests for time to file a better affidavit, explaining the procedure of regularization as well as how the persons whose appointment letters have been annexed in the compliance affidavit dated 3.12.2025 have been absorbed. List this case on 16th December, 2025, for further hearing. In the meantime, affidavit as prayed may be filed. An oral request has been made by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Nagar Nigam to exempt the appearance of the officer concerned, i.e. respondent no.2, Arpit Upadhyaya-Nagar Ayukta, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur. The oral request is considered and liberty is granted to the counsel representing respondent no.2 to file an affidavit of exemption within two hours before the Court. Ref: Order on Civil Misc. Exemption Application Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 has filed exemption application at 2:00 pm today, which is kept on record. Office is directed to register the same. The appearance of respondent no.2 is exempted until and unless required. Accordingly, the exemption application stands disposed of.“ 12. Ref: Order on Civil Misc. Exemption Application Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 has filed exemption application at 2:00 pm today, which is kept on record. Office is directed to register the same. The appearance of respondent no.2 is exempted until and unless required. Accordingly, the exemption application stands disposed of.“ 12. Aforesaid orders were passed on a premise that similarly situated some of the Awazdars were regularized on basis of a purported seniority list despite being junior. It was also alleged that some junior Awazdars were regularized and out of them some were arrayed as private respondents also. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, first issue for consideration is as to whether there was any seniority list of Awazdar and whether some Awazdar were regularized or not? 14. Petitioners have only made an averment in the writ petition in regard to regularization of some Awazdar, but have not placed any document on record to support it , whereas contesting respondents i.e. Nagar Nigam Kanpur has placed appointment letters of private respondents, and for reference appointment letter of respondent no. 9 (Subhash Chandra son of Munir) is taken note of that he was appointed vide an appointment letter dated 12.1.2000, against a recruitment process through a Selection Committee being a fresh appointment against vacant post of Switchman due to death or retirement of substantive appointee or Switchman, therefore claim of petitioners that private respondents were regularized being working as Awazdar treating them as a daily wager is contrary to records. No contrary record was placed on record by the petitioner. For reference, scanned copy as well as typed copy of appointment letter of Subhash Chandra, (respondent no.9) is pasted hereinafter: 15. No contrary record was placed on record by the petitioner. For reference, scanned copy as well as typed copy of appointment letter of Subhash Chandra, (respondent no.9) is pasted hereinafter: 15. Learned counsel for petitioners has placed heavy reliance on a purported seniority list annexed along with this writ petition and for that contents of affidavit filed on behalf of contesting respondents as well as submissions of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of Nagar Nigam Kanpur would be relevant that referred documents though was named as a seniority list, but it was not a seniority list for the purpose of regularization and was not prepared under any provision of law, rather it was a list only for purpose to call Awazdar for work in absence of regular Switchman in a chronical manner as well as that it was never considered as a Seniority List for purpose of regularization and therefore, an argument that seniority list was prepared for purpose of regularization is not correct. No service rule is placed on record by the petitioners to show that purported seniority list has statutory backup. Respective appointment letters of private respondents are also not challenge either. 16. Court also takes note of stand of respondent Kanpur Nagar Nigam that they have conducted a special drive to appoint Switchman under a category of OBC also, therefore, some appointments were made through special drive in due process and not from any alleged seniority list. 17. The facts mentioned in compliance affidavit dated 2.12.2025 remains uncontroverted since no reply was filed by the petitioners. 18. Only outcome of above discussion would be that very basis of claim of petitioners has no legs i.e. does not survive either on facts or on law. 19. Another claim of the petitioners that they have worked for 30 days, but salary was paid for only 10 days, cannot be accepted since it not only remains a very vague claim which has been specifically denied by the respondents. 20. ‘Rules, 2001’ provides that any person who- (a) was directly appointed on daily wage basis on a Group 'D' post in the Government service before June 29. 20. ‘Rules, 2001’ provides that any person who- (a) was directly appointed on daily wage basis on a Group 'D' post in the Government service before June 29. 1991 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules; and (b) possessed requisite qualification prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such appointment on daily wage basis under the relevant service rules, shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available in Group D post, on the date of commencement of these rules on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders. 21. However from the facts referred above, since the petitioners were never directly appointed on daily wages on any Group ‘D’ post, rather they were working for few days when regularly appointed Switchman was absent as Awazdar, therefore, they would not fall within the definition of daily wages, required for consideration under ‘Rules 2001’ therefore, also no case of regularization is made out. 22. Learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on judgment passed in Mohd. Sagir Vs. Nagar Nigam Kanpur , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 473, that in similar circumstances, a plea of a Awazdar was accepted that even he has not worked for 240 days in a year Award was restored, however, Court finds that in said case, an Award was passed by the Labour Court after considering the evidence, statement of witnesses etc. and that respondent Kanpur Nagar Nigam failed to produce records despite summoned, whereas such disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction as well as case placed by petitioners was of arbitrariness, which as referred above does not hold good, therefore, no benefit could be granted of the said judgment. 23. In view of above discussion on facts and law, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, which has assigned legally sustainable reasons. 24. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.