Dharmendra Kumar Vishwakarma vs State Of U.P.Thru.Secy. And 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 32582 of 2016
Dharmendra Kumar Vishwakarma
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P.Thru.Secy. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dharmendra Pratap Singh Chauhan,
Shesh Kumar Srivastava, Siddharth
Khare, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Jai Bahadur Singh
Court No. - 34

AFR
Reserved on 20.07.2026
Delivered on 02.09.2026
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Sri Shesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2
and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State respondents.
2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of
the order dated 28.04.2016, passed by the respondent no. 2, whereby the
petitioner was regularized with effect from the date of the order. The
petitioner has further prayed that his regularisation be treated w.e.f.
28.03.1992, when he was initially engaged or at least from 20.12.2001,
when the UP Regularization of Ad-Hoc Appointments (on Posts Outside
the Purview of Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules
2001 came into force.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was
appointed on the post of Munshi on ad hoc basis by the order dated
28.03.1992, passed by the respondent no. 3, Deputy Director of Irrigation
Water Resource Department, Chandrapuri, Sambhal and the petitioner has
continued to work on ad hoc basis on regular pay-scale. In the seniority

WRIA No. 32582 of 2016
2
list, which was prepared by the respondents on 28.09.2001 with regard to
the ad hoc employees working with the respondents. The name of the
petitioner was placed at Serial No. 74. The petitioner was granted the
regular pay-scale and benefits of various increments including the
benefits under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme time to
time. However, he was not regularized and vide the impugned order dated
28.04.2016, though the petitioner has been regularized in terms of the UP
Regularization of Ad-Hoc Appointments (on Posts Outside the Purview
of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 as amended by the third
amendment, which came into effect w.e.f. 20.12.2001. Now, he claims
and is aggrieved that the regularization is being granted from the date of
order dated 28.04.2016 and not from his initial appointment date
28.03.1992 or alternatively from the date when the Third Amendment
Rules, 2001 came into effect.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he became eligible for
regularization in terms of Third Amendment Rules 2001 on 20.12.2001.
Therefore, his regularization ought to have been granted from the date of
the eligibility for regularization, if not from the date of his initial
appointment.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in terms of the
Third Amendment Rules 2001, the petitioner became eligible in terms of
Rule 4 as he was directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before
30.06.1998 and had possessed the requisite qualification prescribed for
regular appointment at the time of such ad hoc appointment and had
completed three years service. Therefore, he was entitled to be regularized
with effect from his initial appointment.
6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon the following judgments:
1. Chief General Manager, RBI vs. General Secretary, Reserve
Bank of India (Civil Appeal No. 1039 of 2001 dated
05.02.2001)
2. Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and others Vs. State of Assam :

WRIA No. 32582 of 2016
3
2026 INSC 523
3. Narender Singh Vs. State of Haryana : 2022 (3) SCC 286
4. Kumari Laxmi Saroj and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others
: 2022 (17) SCC 477
7. Per contra , learned Standing Counsel for the States submits that the
appointment of the petitioner was not through proper procedure and was
made dehors the rules and in the appointment letter dated 28.03.1992
itself it was categorically mentioned that his services are purely
temporary, ad hoc and can be terminated at any point of time without after
giving one month's notice and at any point of time.
8. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel further submits that the
services of the petitioner are governed by the U.P. Regularization of Ad
Hoc Appointments (on Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service
Commission) Rules, 1979. The said rules were amended time to time.
Firstly, in the year 1984, secondly, in the year 1989 and thirdly, in the
year 2001. Prior to the Third Amendment in the year 2001, there was no
scheme available to the petitioner for regularization and if the aforesaid
1979 Rules are considered in its totality, the regularization is to be done
after preparing the seniority list and even a person though becomes
eligible for regularization in terms of the aforesaid 1979 Rules as
amended time to time, but his regularization is subject to availability of
the regular vacancies and subject to the seniority. Mere eligibility will not
entitle a person to be regularized automatically. Thus, the regularization
will be done as and when the vacancies arose and considering the
seniority of such ad hoc employees for regularisation.
9. Vide impugned order dated 28.04.2016, when the vacancies arose and
the petitioner came in schedule for regularization, in terms of his
seniority, he has been regularized in terms of the 1979 rules as amended
in the year 2001. Therefore, there is no illegality in the regularization
order dated 28.04.2016. It is not the case of the petitioner that any of the
juniors of the petitioner, who were in the seniority list prepared on
28.09.2001 has been given regularization prior to the regularization of the
petitioner herein.

WRIA No. 32582 of 2016
4
10. In support of his submissions, he has also relied upon the judgment of
the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bali Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P.
and Others : [2022 (2) ADJ 5] .
11. He further submits that the claim of the petitioner that he should be
regularized on the date of his eligibility from the date of his initial
appointment or from the date of his eligibility for regularization in terms
of 2001 Rules is baseless and cannot be accepted. Accordingly, prayed for
dismissal of the instant petition.
12. Having heard the submissions so made by learned counsel for the
parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. Facts
of the case are undisputed that the petitioner was appointed vide
appointment order dated 28.03.1992 temporarily on ad hoc basis and his
services were liable to be terminated after giving one month's notice.
However, he continued in service on ad hoc / temporary basis till the date
of his regularization on 28.04.2016 and his regularization has been done
in terms of 1979 Rules as has been amended, from the date of the order
of the regularization.
13. It will be relevant to take note of Rule 4, 5, 6, 7 and Rule 8 of 1979
Rules, which are as under:
"4. Regularisation of ad hoc appointments .-[(1) Any person
who-
(i) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before June
30, 1998 and is continuing in service as such on the date of
commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc
Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public
Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001.
(ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular
appointment as the time of such ad hoc appointment; and
(iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has
completed three years service shall be considered for regular
appointments in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be

WRIA No. 32582 of 2016
5
available, on the basis of his record and suitability before any
regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance
with the relevant rules or orders.
(2) In making regular appointments under these rules
reservations candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and other categories shall
be made in accordance with the orders of the Government in
force at the time of recruitment.
(3) For the purpose of sub-rule (1) the appointing authority
shall constitute a Selection Committee.
(4) The appointing authority shall prepare an eligibility list of
the candidates, arranged in order of seniority, as determined
from the date of order of appointment and if two or more
persons are appointed together from the order in which their
names are arranged in the said appointment order, the list
shall be placed before the Selection Committee along with the
character rolls and such other records of the candidates as
may be considered necessary to assess their suitability.
(5) The Selection Committee shall consider the cases of the
candidates on the basis of their records referred to in sub-rule
(4).
(6) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of the selected
candidates, the names in the list being arranged in order of
seniority, and forward it to the appointing authority.
5. Appointments. -The appointing authority shall, subject to
the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, make appointment
from the list prepared under sub-rule (6) of the said rule in
the order in which the names stand in the list.
6. Appointments be deemed to be under the relevant Service
Rules etc. - Appointment made under these rules shall be
deemed to be under the relevant service rules or orders, if any.

WRIA No. 32582 of 2016
6
7. Seniority. - (1) A person appointed under these rules shall
be entitled to seniority only from the date or order of
appointment after selection in accordance with these rules
and shall, in all cases, be placed below the persons appointed
in accordance with the relevant service rules or as the case
may be, the regular prescribed procedure, prior in the
appointment of such person under these rules.
(2) If two or more persons are appointed together their
seniority inter se shall be determined in the order of
appointment.
8. Termination of the Service.- The services of a person,
appointed on ad hoc basis who is not found suitable or whose
case is not covered by sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of these rules,
shall be terminated forthwith and, on such termination, he
shall be entitled to receive one month's pay."
14. If we consider the scheme of regularization as provided under these
rules, Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 talks about the eligibility of the person for
regularization. Sub-rule (2) provides for the reservation in appointment in
accordance with the directions of the Government. Further, procedure is
provided that the appointing authority shall constitute a Selection
Committee in terms of the rules and thereafter, the eligibility list shall be
prepared in terms of their seniority, which shall be determined on the
basis of the date of the order of appointment and thereafter, the Selection
Committee shall consider the cases of candidates on the basis of their
records and then the Selection Committee shall prepare a list of selected
candidates and thereafter, Rule 5 provides that the appointing authority
shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, shall make the
appointments from the list so prepared by the Selection Committee in
terms of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 4 time to time in the order in which the
names stand in the select list.
15. It is not necessary that all the candidates who has been found eligible
by the Selection Committee for regularization can be given the
regularization in one go. It is for the appointing authority to consider as

WRIA No. 32582 of 2016
7
and when the vacancies arises to give the appointment from the said select
list.
16. Rule 6 provides that such appointment made against the regular post
shall be deemed to have been made under the relevant rules and a person
appointed under these rules shall be entitled to seniority only from the
date of order of appointment. After selection in accordance with these
rules, he shall be placed below the persons who were appointed in
accordance with the relevant service rules through proper procedure.
17. With regard to the eligibility of the petitioner herein is concerned, the
petitioner became eligible for regularization after the Third Amendment
to the aforesaid 1979 Rules made in the year 2001, which came into effect
on 20.12.2001, which provided that any person appointed on ad hoc basis
on or before 30.06.1998 and was having prescribed qualifications at the
time of his initial appointment as on ad hoc basis and he has completed
three years continuous service against the permanent or temporary
vacancy shall be regularized after following the due procedure as
provided in Sub-rule (2) to (6) of Rule 4 and Rule 5 of the 1979 Rules.
18. It is undisputed in this case that coming into force of the amendment
in the year 2001 in 1979 Rules, the petitioner became eligible for
regularization in terms of seniority list wherein he was placed at serial
no.74 under the 2001 Rules.
19. In the considered opinion of this Court, rules do not provide that all
the candidates who are found eligible by the Selection Committee are to
be given appointment at one go. They are to be given appointment against
regular permanent vacancy only. Thus, as and when the vacancies so
occur, such ad hoc candidates are required to be regularized and their
seniority will depend from the date of the order of the appointment. Thus,
for all practical purposes regularization is required to be considered from
the date of the order of appointment in terms of the aforesaid 1979 Rules.
Thus, in view of the categorical scheme provided in the 1979, Rules as
amended in the year 2001, the claim of the petitioner that he should be
given regularization from any earlier date is not sustainable. The
judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner as mentioned

WRIA No. 32582 of 2016
8
above do not deal with the aforesaid rules and the scheme of the rules.
Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, they are not applicable on
the facts of the instant case.
20. By way of supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has brought on
record an order dated 11.10.2019 in respect of Sri Ramakant Tiwari,
Junior Clerk, who was also identically regularized by the identically
worded order dated 28.04.2016 from the date of the order of appointment,
however, he has been later regularized w.e.f. 04.04.1999 from the date of
his initial joining and on the basis thereof the petitioner has claimed the
benefit of regularization to be given to the petitioner also from the date of
his initial joining i.e., 28.03.1992.
21. Since, we have already held that under the scheme of 1979, Rules
there is no provision for giving the regularization from the date of initial
appointment or from the date of eligibility of such candidate for
regularization. In the this regard, the following observation of the Apex
Court in Uday Pratap Thakur and Anr. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (Civil
Appeal No. 31155 of 2023 dated 28.04.2023) would be relevant, wherein
the Apex Court has held that there is a categorical difference between a
regular appointment as well as on the daily wager, work-charge, ad hoc,
temporary appointments, which have been made without following proper
procedure.
22. The relevant observation of the Apex Court in Udai Pratap Thakur
(supra) are as under:
“…………..there is always a difference and distinction between
a regular employee appointed on a substantive post and a work
charged employee working under work charged establishment.
The work charged employees are not appointed on a
substantive post. They are not appointed after due process of
selection and as per the recruitment rules. Therefore, the
services rendered as work charged cannot be counted for the
purpose of pension / quantum of pension…………”
23. In such view of the matter and after examining the scheme of
regularization, this Court is of the considered view that regularization

WRIA No. 32582 of 2016
9
order cannot be given effect to prior to the date of order of regularization
order.
24. In such view of the matter, claim for negative parity cannot be
acceded to by this Court. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
September 2, 2026
Shubham Arya
Digitally signed by :-
SHUBHAM ARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad