DRDA scheme employees are ineligible for regularisation under the 2016 Regularisation Rules.

The petitioners were engaged by various District Rural Development Agencies (DRDAs) between 1986 and 2003 and claimed continuous service as Data Entry Operators, Computer Operators, and Computer Programmers.

They sought regularisation/absorption in the post of Computer Programmer/Computer Operator, payment of salary in the applicable regular pay scale, or, alternatively, regularisation as Statistical Assistant/Clerk in the DRDAs.

They also challenged Government orders dated 3 February 2009 and 20 May 2010, by which similar claims for regularisation had been rejected.

During the proceedings, three petitioners withdrew from the case after leaving employment; six had superannuated and one had died, rendering their claims infructuous.

The surviving petitioners relied on Government Orders dated 13 August 2015 and 9 December 2021 concerning regularisation.

1. Whether the surviving petitioners, being engaged by DRDAs, were entitled to regularisation or absorption as Computer Programmers/Computer Operators, or alternatively as Statistical Assistants/Clerks.

2. Whether the petitioners could claim the benefit of the Government Order dated 13 August 2015 concerning regularisation in Government departments and other specified bodies.

3. Whether the U.P. Regularisation of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ Posts (Outside the Purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 applied to the petitioners.

4. Whether the petitioners could challenge the rejection orders dated 3 February 2009 and 20 May 2010, although they were not parties to the proceedings or representations decided by those orders.

The Court applied the principle that regularisation cannot be claimed as an automatic right contrary to the applicable statutory or administrative framework, consistently with the principles governing regularisation recognised in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1.

It held that the Government Order dated 13 August 2015 applied only to Government departments, autonomous bodies, public enterprises and corporations, local bodies, development authorities, and district panchayats, and not to DRDAs, which are societies registered under the Societies Registration Act and function under Government of India schemes.

Rule 2(3) of the 2016 Regularisation Rules excludes persons engaged on consolidated pay, fixed honorarium, or in schemes/projects of the State Government or Government of India-sponsored programmes.

A person who was not a party to a decision or representation generally cannot seek quashing of the resulting order at his or her instance.

The Court found that the petitioners’ engagement was by DRDAs, which are registered societies operating under Government of India schemes rather than Government departments or bodies covered by the 2015 Government Order.

Consequently, that Government Order could not support their claim.

The Court further held that Rule 2(3) of the 2016 Rules expressly excluded persons engaged in schemes or projects on consolidated pay, fixed honorarium, or similar arrangements; the petitioners therefore fell outside the Rules’ scope.

Their reliance on the absorption of allegedly similarly situated DRDA employees in Uttarakhand did not establish an enforceable right to regularisation in Uttar Pradesh.

As the petitioners were not parties to the proceedings or representations resulting in the orders dated 3 February 2009 and 20 May 2010, they had no basis to seek their quashing.

The Court accordingly found no legal foundation for regularisation or absorption.

The petition was dismissed as not pressed with respect to petitioners nos. 7, 28, and 30, and the claims of petitioners nos. 10, 14, 15, 17, 21, 25, and 29 were dismissed as infructuous due to death or superannuation.

The challenge to the orders dated 3 February 2009 and 20 May 2010 was rejected.

The surviving petitioners were held not entitled to the benefit of the 2015 Government Order or the 2016 Regularisation Rules, and their claims for regularisation/absorption were dismissed for lack of merit.