1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9413­9414  OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 23297­23298 of 2018)

RAJNISH KUMAR MISHRA & ORS.  ETC.           ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH &  ORS. ETC.             .... RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T   

Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The appeals challenge the judgment and order passed

by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated

09.07.2018, which has dismissed the appeals filed by the

present appellants and confirmed the order passed by the

learned single judge of the said High Court dated

14.9.2017 with some modifications.

2

4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeals

are as under.  

5. On creation of the Ambedkar Nagar Judgeship, the

appellants were appointed on ad­hoc basis. The appellants

were appointed in the year 1999­2001. The initial

appointment of the appellants was made  for a period of

three months, which term was extended from time to time.

6. In the year 2001,  an advertisement was  issued  for

direct recruitment of  Class­III employees,  which led the

appellants to file several writ petitions before the High

Court which were clubbed together, the lead Writ Petition

being W.P. No.7544(S/S) of  2003.  In the said bunch of

writ petitions, an order was passed on 01.08.2006

providing therein, that appellants may apply in response to

the advertisement and their cases shall be considered

along with other candidates. It was also directed that the

District Judge  may  send their  names to  High  Court  on

administrative side for considering, if they could be granted

relaxation in age. It was further observed, that it was open

for the District Judge and Selection Committee to take into

account the length of service  and experience  etc.  of the

3

appellants. It  was further  directed that till the  selection

process was over, appellants would be allowed to continue

in service in the same capacity.  

7. It appears from the record that subsequently the said

selection process came to be cancelled and the appellants

were continued in the employment on the ad hoc basis as

per the interim order  passed on 01.08.2006.   It further

appears, that in the mean­time the appellants, since they

were continued for a long period, made representations to

the District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar for their

regularisation.   The District Judge by an order dated

28.5.2012 constituted a Committee under the

chairmanship of an Additional District Judge, comprising

of two other members who were also Judicial Officers. The

said Committee submitted its report on 12.07.2012,

recommending regularization of the appellants.  Pursuant

to the said recommendation made by the Committee, the

District  Judge passed orders  regularising  the services  of

the appellants on 09.11.2012. However, the successor in

the office of the District Judge passed an order dated

16.08.2014 thereby, declaring that the orders of

regularization were non­est. By a second order passed on

4

the same day i.e. 16.08.2014, the District Judge also

withdrew the earlier order by which, the appellants were

granted the benefits of increments with certain other

benefits. The District Judge passed a third order on

16.08.2014 thereby, directing recovery of emoluments paid

to the appellants.   It is further to be noted that after the

writ petitions were dismissed by the learned single judge of

the High Court on 14.9.2017, the appellants’ services came

to be terminated immediately on 23.9.2017.  

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid three orders, the

appellants  filed Writ  Petition No.4813  (S/S) of  2014 and

Writ Petition No.5530 (S/S) of 2014. The single Judge of

High Court by an order dated 14.09.2017, dismissed the

writ petitions and  also imposed cost of  Rs.50,000/­ on

each of the appellants (petitioners therein).  

9. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred

appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. The

Division Bench while dismissing the appeals, however, set

aside the order insofar as saddling the costs is concerned.

The Division Bench further directed, that since one Manish

Kumar Malviya, who was also one of the appellants before

5

the Division Bench of the High Court, was appointed on

06.04.1998, he was eligible to be considered for

regularization in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Regularization

of Ad­hoc Appointment (On Post within the purview of the

Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 as amended in the

year 2001. It was further directed, that till the outcome of

consideration of his case for regularization he should be

continued on ad­hoc basis. The Division Bench further

directed that in case any recruitment process for Class III

posts takes place in future, the appellants would be

permitted to participate in the same and the Court would

consider grant of relaxation in age and grant of preference

to them by giving some benefit of length of service rendered

by them in  ad­hoc  capacity.   Being aggrieved thereby, the

appellants have approached this Court.

10. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for the

appellants submits, that the Single Judge as well as the

Division Bench of the High Court have erred in dismissing

the petitions and appeals of the appellants. She submits,

that the Committee under the chairmanship of the

Additional District Judge had given report on 12.07.2012

on the basis of Circular dated 05.11.2009, issued by the

6

High Court.  She further submits, that the then incumbent

of the office of the District Judge had rightly, after

considering the report,  issued the order of regularisation

on 9.11.2012.  She submits, that as a matter of fact, there

was no occasion for the successor in the office of the

District Judge to have passed order dated 16.08.2014,

cancelling the  order  of regularization  granted  vide  order

dated 9.11.2012.

11. The learned counsel for the appellants further

submits, that during the pendency of the writ petitions the

UP 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

UP Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 were framed.

Rule  6 thereof  provided cut­off  date  as  31.12.2001.  She

further submits, that the High Court has failed to take into

consideration the import of said Rules.

12. The learned counsel further submits, that this Court

in the case of  Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors.  vs.  State of

Uttar Pradesh & Ors.1, after considering the judgment of

this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs.

1 (2018) 13 SCC 432 {Civil Appeal No.18510 of 2017 [@ SLP(C) No.6183/2015]}

7

Umadevi  (3)  & Ors.2  wherein  it  was observed that as a

one­time measure the employer should take steps for

regularisation of the services of the employees who had put

in service of 10 years or more and had directed

regularization of the appellants therein. The learned

counsel further  submits, that the  appeals  deserve to  be

allowed and the  impugned order deserves to be quashed

and set aside.

13. Shri S.R. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondents would submit, that the

appellants continued in service by virtue of interim order

passed by the High Court dated 01.08.2006 and, as such,

the benefit  of  one­time regularization as provided by the

judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the

case of  Umadevi   (supra),   cannot be granted to the

appellants. It is further submitted, that the report of the

Committee set up by the District Judge dated 12.07.2012

was collusive and, as such, the successor in the office of

District Judge had rightly passed an order dated

16.08.2014 thereby, cancelling the order of regularization

dated 09.11.2012 passed on the basis of the Report dated

2 (2006) 4 SCC 1

8

12.07.2012.   He further submits, that the appellants are

not entitled to the equitable relief and, as such, the appeals

deserve to be dismissed.

14. We have perused the material placed on record.  The

Circular  addressed by  the Registrar  General  of the High

Court of Allahabad dated 05.11.2009 would show, that all

the  District  Judges  have  been  directed that in order to

restore the procedure for appointment of Class III and

Class IV employees, all such ad­hoc daily wage appointees,

who are appointed subsequent to 31.12.2001 without

following any procedure of law, must cease to work

immediately. It appears, that the said cut­off date is

provided in the said circular inasmuch as the provisions of

Uttar Pradesh Regularization of daily wages Appointments

on Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001 were notified on

31.12.2001. The Committee under the chairmanship of the

Additional District Judge after basically considering the

Circular dated 05.11.2009 and the cut­off date of

31.12.2001  mentioned therein  had  submitted the report

thereby, recommending regularization of the appellants.

While considering the same, the Committee also found that

all the appellants were appointed prior to 31.12.2001; they

9

were in continuous service thereafter and their services

were satisfactory. In pursuance of the said report the

District Judge vide order dated 09.11.2012 regularized the

services of appellants from 01.06.2012. It appears that

subsequently in the year 2014 certain employees made

representation(s) to the successor in the office of the

District Judge for promotion. While examining the same,

the District Judge found that regularization of the

appellants was not proper and, therefore, vide order dated

16.08.2014 annulled  the regularization of the appellants

and also  ordered  for recovery  of the  amount,  which  the

appellants  had received  on  the  basis  of the order  dated

09.11.2012.

15. The Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have

primarily non­suited the appellants on the ground, that the

regularization of the appellants was on account of collusion

between the appellants and the members of the Committee.

However, at the cost of repetition, we may state that the

report  of the  Committee  under the  chairmanship  of the

Additional  District Judge is  mainly on the  basis of the

Circular issued by the Registrar General of the High Court

dated 05.11.2009.   It is further to be noted, that by the

10

time when the  cases  of the appellants for regularization

had come up for consideration before the Committee the

Judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the

case of Umadevi (supra) had already been pronounced. In

the said Judgment itself, the Constitution Bench had

provided that as a one­time measure the State should take

up steps for regularization of the employees, who had

rendered the services for a period of more than 10 years.  

16. It is further to be noted that similarly circumstanced

employees in the employment of the State of Uttar Pradesh,

who were appointed on daily wages/contractual basis had

approached the Allahabad High Court praying for

regularization of their services. The Single Judge had

dismissed the writ petitions which orders were affirmed by

the Division Bench. The said employees therein had

approached this Court by way of Civil Appeal No.18510 of

2017 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6183

of 2015) in the case of  Sheo Narain Nagar  cited supra. It

will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this

Court in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar (supra): “The appellants were required to be appointed on regular basis as a one­time measure, as laid down in paragraph 53 of Umadevi (supra). Since the appellants had completed 10 years of service

11

and temporary status  had  been given by the respondents with retrospective effect in the 02.10.2002,  we direct that the services  of the appellants be regularized from the said date i.e. 02.10.2002, consequential benefits and the arrears of pay also to be paid to the appellants within a period of three months from today.”

17. Another aspect that needs consideration is that

during the pendency of the petitions, the Rules with regard

to regularization were amended which provided cut­off date

of 31.12.2001.   Undisputedly, all the appellants were

appointed prior to 31.12.2001. The change in position of

law ought to  have been taken  into  consideration by  the

High Court.  It is not in dispute that all the appellants were

appointed prior to 31.12.2001. Undisputedly, the

appellants were continued in services from 01.08.2006 on

account of interim orders passed in writ petitions.

However, the selection process in which the appellants

were permitted to participate, could not see the light of the

day, as it was subsequently cancelled in 2008.  As such, as

a matter of fact, when the appellants’ case was considered

for regularization by a Committee under the chairmanship

of  Additional  District  Judge, the appellants  had, in  fact,

put in service almost for a period of 12 years.

12

18. As such, apart from the circular issued by the

Registrar General of the High Court dated 05.11.2009, the

appellants’ cases were also required to be taken into

consideration  in view of the exception carved out  in  the

case of  Umadevi  (supra).  We find that the  Committee

under the chairmanship of the Additional  District  Judge

had rightly submitted its report dated 12.07.2012 and the

then District Judge had rightly passed the order of

regularization on 09.11.2012 granting regularization from

01.06.2012. We find, that while considering the

representation of some of the employees for promotion, the

successor in the office of the District Judge could not have

annulled the order of the regularization of the appellants

which was done after following the proper procedure. The

least that was required to be done was to follow the

principles  of  natural justice  by  giving  an  opportunity  of

being heard to the appellants. We find, that the three

orders passed by the District Judge dated 16.08.2014 also

suffer from violation of the principles of natural justice.  

19. In  any case,  we  find  that in  view of the exception

carved out  in  the case of  Umadevi  (supra)  providing  for

one­time regularization of employees who have completed

13

10 years  or above; the parity  of  similarly  circumstanced

employees who have been granted benefit in the case of

Sheo Narain Nagar  (supra)  and the  Rules  amended in

2016 which provide a cut­off date of 31.12.2001, the

appellants are also entitled for regularization of their

services.  

20. In the result: (1) the appeals are allowed;  (2) the Judgement and order dated 14.09.2017

passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of

Allahabad in Writ Petition No.4813(S/S) of 2014

and Writ Petition No.5530(S/S) of 2014 as well

as Division Bench of the said High Court dated

09.07.2018  in Special  Appeal  No.440 of  2017

and in Special Appeal No.444 of 2017 are

quashed and set aside; and (3) the orders dated 16.08.2014 passed by the

District Judge,  Ambedkar  Nagar are  quashed

and set  aside  and  the  consequential order  of

termination dated 23.9.2017  is also quashed

and set aside. (4) the order dated 9.11.2012 passed by the

District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar regularizing

14

the services of appellants with effect from

01.06.2012 is upheld.   (5) Consequentially, the termination of the

appellants  from their  services  is  quashed and

set aside and the appellants are directed to be

reinstated  forthwith with continuity in  service

for all the purposes including terminal benefits.

However, in the facts and circumstance of the

case, the appellants would not be entitled for

back wages for the period during which they are

out of employment.

21. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be  no

order as to cost. All pending applications shall stand

disposed of.

…………...................CJI.                              [S.A. BOBDE]

…………........................J.                              [B.R. GAVAI]

..................................J.                                                   [SURYA KANT]

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 13, 2019