STATE OF U. P. Vs. PUTTI LAL
LAWS(SC)-2002-2-138
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
February 21,2002
STATE OF U. P.
Appellant
VERSUS
PUTTI LAL
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
KUMARI USHA SAXENA D/O LATE SRI GOPAL KUMAR SAXENA VS. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER [LAWS(UTN)-2010-4-50] [REFERRED TO]RAM DAYAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-1-77] [REFERRED TO]
GAURAV MISHRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-12-61] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN SWAROOP VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-92] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN SWAROOP VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-92] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-10-67] [REFERRED TO]
AVTAR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2011-11-105] [REFERRED TO]
Gyanchand Saw VS. State of Bihar [LAWS(JHAR)-2008-10-88] [REFERRED TO]
HARISH CHANDRA SHARMA VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2014-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
N K JANU, DY DIRECTOR SOCIAL WEL AND 2 OTHERS VS. LAKSHMI CHANDRA [LAWS(ALL)-2016-4-466] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH @ MUNESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-288] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARESH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
SUGHAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-330] [REFERRED]
SHIV BABU GARG VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-7-471] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. ANIRBAN GHOSH [LAWS(CAL)-2020-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA SINGH BHANDARI VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2014-6-35] [REFERRED TO]
NAGENDRA BHAGAT VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2020-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH DIDAKOSE, K.G. VS. CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST AND ANOTHER [LAWS(KER)-2017-4-73] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. UNMILIKA DAS [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
LAL CHAND AND ANR. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-7-421] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-10-55] [REFERRED TO]
KUWAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2013-11-241] [REFERRED]
BRIJENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-326] [REFERRED]
SHRAWAN KUMAR GIRI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-1-434] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH SHUKLA VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOREST AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-1-41] [REFERRED TO]
SALAMAT ULLAH KHAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS. VS. PUSHKAR BHATT AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2006-3-57] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VS. UMRAO SINGH BISHT [LAWS(UTN)-2019-11-44] [REFERRED TO]
GAGAN BIHARI BHANJA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2015-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
BIMBADHAR PRADHAN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2015-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
M SREEKUMAR VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-10-232] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. FOREST OFFICER SOCIAL [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-238] [REFERRED TO]
AWADHESH KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-144] [REFERRED TO]
GOVT SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (MIGRANTS) REGD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-114] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHORE VS. STATE OF U.P.THROUGH ITS SECY. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
RAMU VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-7-136] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. VS. CHATURTH SHRENI BAN KARAMCHARI SANGH [LAWS(ALL)-2010-8-424] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-12-144] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA PRAKASH VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-337] [REFERRED]
RAM KUMAR TIWARI VS. DEVENDRA KUMAR, CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-107] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI CHANDRA VS. N K JANU, DY DIRECTOR SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION AND ANR [LAWS(ALL)-2016-4-359] [REFERRED]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. KINKAR KARMAKAR [LAWS(CAL)-2008-1-95] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR YADAV VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-12-28] [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR SECONDARY TEACHERS STRUGGLE COMMITTEE VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-10-56] [REFERRED TO]
USHA SAXENA D/O LATE SRI GOPAL KUMAR SAXENA VS. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER HALDWANI NAINITAL [LAWS(UTN)-2012-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
JAI NARAYAN CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-8-89] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. THRU SECY. LOK NIRMAN VS. SANJU LAL [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-48] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SINGH & ANR VS. YOGESH KUMAR SHUKLA,RAJYA SAMPATT ADHIKARI,RAJYA SAMPATTI VIBHAG [LAWS(ALL)-2018-12-94] [REFERRED TO]
CHANCHAL KUMAR TIWARI VS. SHRI HARI SHANKAR [LAWS(ALL)-2010-8-135] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-331] [REFERRED]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. CHARANJIT SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2005-10-83] [REFERRED TO]
SEJAL DAVIDBHAI CHRISTIAN VS. MAHARAJA SAYAJIRAO UNIVERSITY OF BARODA [LAWS(GJH)-2022-6-1740] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ISMAIL NOORMOHAMMAD MADANA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-2-22] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH RAO KHEDIKAR VS. SHRI PRAMOD AGRAWAL, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND 4 OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-5-321] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI DUTT JOSHI VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOREST DEPARTMENT, UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2015-12-54] [REFERRED]
VINOD SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2017-10-108] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-329] [REFERRED]
MAHARAJ SINGH VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-335] [REFERRED]
RADHEY SHYAM VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2012-5-291] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-7-470] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT [LAWS(ALL)-2008-4-117] [REFERRED TO]
KAPIL DEV YADAV VS. FOREST OFFICER SOCIAL [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-170] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA SINGH AND 13 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND 4 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2015-12-409] [REFERRED]
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. VS. JAGJIT SINGH & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-10-49] [REFERRED TO]
DY.DIRECTOR, SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVN.& ANR VS. LAKSHMI CHANDRA [LAWS(SC)-2016-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
SABHA SHANKER DUBE VS. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2018-11-13] [REFERRED TO]
RANVEER SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2017-11-23] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV NATH VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-432] [REFERRED]
JAGANNATH YADAV VS. STATE OF U P AND 4 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-172] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BHAWAN VS. SAHAYAK ABHIYANTA IVTH LIFT SINCHAI PRAKHAND ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2004-8-158] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHA DEVI VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2022-3-88] [REFERRED TO]
MAHIPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-461] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SARAN AND 4 ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2012-1-767] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARESH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-4-130] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-327] [REFERRED]
RAVI SHANKAR TIWARI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-50] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)IA for discharge of advocate is allowed.
(2.)These appeals and the special leave petitions are directed against one and the same judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court disposed of a batch of appeals by a common judgment. The respondents were daily-rated wage earners in the Forest Department having already served the Department for several years. They approached the High Court for regularisation of their services. The Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated 10.12.1997 called upon the Government to frame a scheme as to how the services of these daily-rated workers could be regularised. A committee was directed to be constituted consisting of Secretary (Finance), Secretary (Forest) and the Legal Rememberancers or their nominees, which committee was called upon to frame the scheme for regularisation of the daily-rated employees working in the Forest Department. The High Court also came to hold that these daily-rated workers should be paid at the minimum of the pay scale that is available for a regular worker in the corresponding post in the Government. This Court, after issuing notice by order dated 13.05.1998, directed maintenance of status quo so far as the payments are concerned. Subsequently, on hearing parties after notice, by order dated 3.08.1998 leave was granted and the operation of the impugned judgment was stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
(3.)On behalf of the employees an IA had been filed claiming that they should at least be allowed their regular wages during the pendency of the appeals, but by order dated 27.09.1999 that prayer was rejected and it was held that the persons working will be paid only the amount payable to a daily-wager. When these matters had been posted for hearing before the Court on 1.05.2001, after hearing the parties for a considerable length of time, the Court felt that the impugned direction of the High Court for providing a scheme for regularisation of all the daily-wage workers/muster-roll employees under the Forest Department who have rendered 10 years of service or more, should be regularised by making appropriate scheme. The Court directed that the scheme should be framed within three months from the date of the order. As the State of U.P. was bifurcated into two States and the State of Uttaranchal had come into existence, by a subsequent order the State of Uttaranchal was also impleaded as a party and it had been granted time to file its response. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Court dated 1.05.2001 the State of U.P. has framed a set of rules in exercise of power conferred under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India called "the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wagers (Appointment on Group 'D' Posts) Rules, 2001". It appears that a similar rule has been framed for regularisation of Group 'C daily-wage employees. Both these statutory rules would govern the case of all daily-wagers appointed in any department including the Forest Department, which Department was before us pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Since a statutory rule has been framed indicating the manner in which the daily-wagers can be regularised, question of framing any further scheme by the State of Uttar Pradesh does not arise.
(2.)These appeals and the special leave petitions are directed against one and the same judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court disposed of a batch of appeals by a common judgment. The respondents were daily-rated wage earners in the Forest Department having already served the Department for several years. They approached the High Court for regularisation of their services. The Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated 10.12.1997 called upon the Government to frame a scheme as to how the services of these daily-rated workers could be regularised. A committee was directed to be constituted consisting of Secretary (Finance), Secretary (Forest) and the Legal Rememberancers or their nominees, which committee was called upon to frame the scheme for regularisation of the daily-rated employees working in the Forest Department. The High Court also came to hold that these daily-rated workers should be paid at the minimum of the pay scale that is available for a regular worker in the corresponding post in the Government. This Court, after issuing notice by order dated 13.05.1998, directed maintenance of status quo so far as the payments are concerned. Subsequently, on hearing parties after notice, by order dated 3.08.1998 leave was granted and the operation of the impugned judgment was stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
(3.)On behalf of the employees an IA had been filed claiming that they should at least be allowed their regular wages during the pendency of the appeals, but by order dated 27.09.1999 that prayer was rejected and it was held that the persons working will be paid only the amount payable to a daily-wager. When these matters had been posted for hearing before the Court on 1.05.2001, after hearing the parties for a considerable length of time, the Court felt that the impugned direction of the High Court for providing a scheme for regularisation of all the daily-wage workers/muster-roll employees under the Forest Department who have rendered 10 years of service or more, should be regularised by making appropriate scheme. The Court directed that the scheme should be framed within three months from the date of the order. As the State of U.P. was bifurcated into two States and the State of Uttaranchal had come into existence, by a subsequent order the State of Uttaranchal was also impleaded as a party and it had been granted time to file its response. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Court dated 1.05.2001 the State of U.P. has framed a set of rules in exercise of power conferred under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India called "the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wagers (Appointment on Group 'D' Posts) Rules, 2001". It appears that a similar rule has been framed for regularisation of Group 'C daily-wage employees. Both these statutory rules would govern the case of all daily-wagers appointed in any department including the Forest Department, which Department was before us pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Since a statutory rule has been framed indicating the manner in which the daily-wagers can be regularised, question of framing any further scheme by the State of Uttar Pradesh does not arise.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.