Ratnank Mishra vs High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 428 OF 2022 RATNANK MISHRA & OTHERS … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL …RESPONDENT

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 429 OF 2022 SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA … APPELLANT

VERSUS

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL …RESPONDENT

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 430 OF 2022 AJAY KUMAR MISHRA & OTHERS … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH Signature Not Verified

REGISTRAR GENERAL Digitally signed by Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2025.12.19 …RESPONDENT 16:45:51 IST Reason:

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 1 of 29 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 431 OF 2022 DHARMENDRA SINGH RATHORE … APPELLANT

VERSUS

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

J.K. Maheshwari J.

1. These appeals call into question the correctness of the judgments

dated 14.10.20151 and 30.10.20152 rendered by the Division Bench

of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad affirming the decision of

the learned Single Judge dated 31.08.20153 and setting aside

judgment dated 31.10.20144, respectively. The controversy arises

because of non-regularization or non-confirmation of the employees

(hereinafter referred to as “Appellants”) on the post of Operator-cum-

Data Entry Assistants / Routine Grade Clerks by the Respondent i.e.,

The High Court of Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "High Court”),

1 In Special Appeal No. 411 of 2015; Special Appeal No. 412 of 2015; Special Appeal No. 410 of

2015 2 In Special Appeal No. 1109 of 2014 3 In Service Single No. 5512 of 2013; Service Single No. 5287 of 2013; Service Single No. 5288 of

2013 4 In Writ – A No. 55500 of 2013 Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 2 of 29 despite serval similarly situated employees having been regularized

from time to time.

2. The appointments in the High Court are governed by the

Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and

Conduct) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1976 Rules’) framed

under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. The Appellants were

appointed by the then Chief Justice of the High Court while exercising

the powers conferred to him under Rule 8(a)(i) read with Rules 41 and

45 of the 1976 Rules.

3. The controversy in the present case is that while numerous

similarly situated employees appointed in similar fashion have been

regularized from time to time, the Appellants contend that they were

singled out without there being any reasonable justification and

denied regularization. In this background, the power of the Chief

Justice of the High Court to make recruitment to Class III posts flows

from Rules 8 (a)(i), 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules, which are relevant

and are reproduced as thus:

“8. Sources of recruitment to class III post – The sources of recruitment to the various class III posts in the establishment shall be as follows:

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 3 of 29 (a)(i) Routine Grade Clerks – (I) By direct recruitment through competitive examination conducted by the appointing authority or in any manner so directed by Chief Justice.”

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

“41. Residuary powers. – Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to affect the power of the Chief Justice to make such orders, from time to time, as he may deem fit in regard to all matters, incidental or ancillary to these rules, not specifically provided for herein or in regard to matters as have not been sufficiently provided for:

Provided that if any such order relates to salaries, allowances, leave or pension, the same shall be made with the approval of the Governor of U.P.”

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

“45. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Chief Justice shall have the power to make such orders, as he may consider fit, in respect of recruitment, promotion, confirmation or any other matter.”

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. The Appellants were engaged by the Respondent on ad-hoc basis

as Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistant / Routine Grade Clerk, which

are Class-III posts in the High Court. These appointments were made

under the orders of the Chief Justice in exercise of powers under Rule

8(1)(a) read with 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules. A tabulated list of the

Appellants along with their respective dates of appointment is

produced hereafter for reference:

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 4 of 29

S. Civil Appeal Name of the Appellant Date of No. Appointment

1. Ratnank Mishra 08.12.2004

2. Md. Faiq Naseem 08.12.2004 Civil Appeal No. Siddiqui

3. 428 of 2022 Saif Husain 08.12.2004

4. Ram Prakash Yadav 08.12.2004

5. Ashish Kumar Srivastav 08.12.2004

6. Civil Appeal No. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma 27.05.2005 429 of 2022

7. Ajay Kumar Mishra 27.10.2005

8. Affan Ahmad 27.10.2005

9. Ashutosh Shukla 27.10.2005

10. Rafeeq Ahmad 27.10.2005

11. Civil Appeal No. Pawan Kumar Tiwari 27.10.2005

12. 430 of 2022 Rohit Kumar Singh 27.10.2005

13. Mahendra Misra 23.11.2005

14. Pravesh Kumar 23.11.2005

15. Ajeet Dixit 23.11.2005

16. Civil Appeal No. Dharmendra Singh 01.09.2004 431 of 2022 Rathore

Meanwhile, other similarly placed persons were also appointed on the

same post from time to time in exercise of the power vested with the

Chief Justice of the High Court under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of the

1976 Rules, without conducting regular process of recruitment as

prescribed in the Rules.

5. The controversy with respect to appointment and regularization

of persons appointed on post of Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistant/

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 5 of 29 Routine Grade Clerk in the High Court in exercise of powers conferred

upon Chief Justice under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of 1976 Rules was

already boiling up even prior to the present dispute. One such dispute

culminated in the Division Bench decision dated 20.09.2011 passed

by the High Court in Special Appeal No. 563 of 2008 which, although,

is not the subject matter of this dispute, it may have material bearing

on the present case. Some appointments to the post of ‘Routine Grade

Clerk’ made by the Chief Justice of the High Court in exercise of

powers under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules, were

challenged by a regular recruitment candidate in Civil Misc. Writ

Petition No. 45922/2004 before the Single Judge.

6. The learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition vide

judgment dated 27.07.2007, inter alia observing that no relief can be

granted to the candidate therein, since he had become ineligible for

the relevant post after amendment in the service rules, and since the

post of ‘Routine Grade Clerk’ was declared a dying cadre and merged

into the post of ‘Assistant Review Officer’. Nonetheless, learned Single

Judge, relied on the judgment of this Court in State of Karnataka

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 6 of 29 v. Umadevi5 and made an observation that appointments made by

the Chief Justice of the High Court in exercise of powers under Rules

8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules will be subject to regular

appointment under Rule 8 of the said rules and the appointees will

not be confirmed and regularized.

7. The observations made by the learned Single Judge were

challenged by the High Court and the appointees under Rules 8(a)(i),

41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules in Special Appeal No. 563/2008 before

the Division Bench, which then passed the judgment on 20.09.2011.

The Division Bench essentially held that appointments made in

exercise of powers under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules

cannot be said to be illegal or irregular. It was held that the Chief

Justice was the best person to judge the need of the institution and

any appointment made by him cannot be doubted. Thereafter, the

Division Bench issued directions to the Registrar General to take

appropriate steps with regard to confirmation / regularization and

consequential relief of the employees thereunder.

5 (2006) 4 SCC 1.

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 7 of 29

8. Pursuant to the judgment discussed above, dated 20.09.2011, the

Chief Justice of the High Court on the administrative side, constituted

a Committee consisting of two Judges of the High Court (hereinafter

referred to as “Committee”) vide order dated 30.09.2011. The

objective of the Committee was to examine the cases of appointees

serving as Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants / Routine Grade

Clerks and to determine their eligibility for regularization.

9. In the interregnum, the Chief Justice on receiving various

representations of Class – III employees seeking regularization,

referred them to the Committee. In its report dated 31.05.2012, the

Committee made recommendation for regularization of some

employees, and rejected the claim of others, including the Appellants

herein. The report of the Committee, dated 31.05.2012, is relevant,

therefore it is reproduced as under:

“REPORT

Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 30.09.2011 had referred the matter for consideration of confirmation / regularization and for grant of consequential relief according to the judgment of Division Bench.

A representation as (sic) been made by 7 persons namely S/Sri Barmeshwar Pandey (EMP No. 7158), Tej Singh (EMP No. 7159), Anand Pal Singh (EMP No. 7160), Ajeet Kumar Srivastava (EMP No. 7163), Santosh Kumar Tiwari (EMP No.

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 8 of 29 5900), Abhishek (EMP No. 7163) and Sharad Kumar (EMP No. 7164) (hereinafter referred to as the Representationists) requesting the Registrar General to pass appropriate orders as directed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in its judgement dated 20.09.2011 passed in Special Appeal No. 1152 of 2007.

It appears that all the 7 Representationists were appointed as ad hoc Routine Grade Clerks vide office order dated 01.09.2004 with a condition that they shall be permitted to appear in the examination / test to be held for direct recruitment of Routine Grade Clerks and, their appointment shall be regularized and confirmed only after they are selected in that examination/test. The appointment of these Representationists was challenged by means of Writ Petition No. 495922 of 2044, (sic) Devendra Kumar Pandey versus Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others. The Writ Petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 27.07.2007. The learned Single Judge was pleased to make the following observations:

“Following the observations of the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court, the Court expects that all appointments made by Hon’ble The Chief Justice in exercise of his powers under Rule 41 and 45 of the High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976, will be subject to the regular selection by direct recruitment in accordance with Rule 8 of these Rules and that these appointees will not be confirmed and regularized.”

The Representationists as also the High Court preferred separate Special Appeal Nos. 1152 of 2007 and 563 of 2008. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 20.09.2011 had been pleased to allow both the Special appeals. The Division Bench had passed the following order:

“Thus, in totality, both the appeals succeed and are allowed. The direction given by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 21 of the impugned judgment dated 27th July, 2007 following the observations of the Supreme Court judgment in Uma Devi (supra) stands set aside. The writ petition is treated to be dismissed on the basis of the observations of the Learned Single Judge himself in the earlier paragraphs of the impugned judgment. Registrar General of this Court is hereby directed to take

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 9 of 29 appropriate steps with regard to confirmation/ regularization and consequential benefits of the employees hereunder.

However, no order is passed as to costs.”

The Representations have requested the Registrar General to give effect to the order dated 20.09.2011 passed by the Division Bench.

We may mention here that even though the Division Bench had observed that the cadre of Routine Grade Clerk has been declared as ‘dead cadre’ by Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 19.10.2005 and has merged in the cadre of Assistant Review Officer, the State Government vide order dated 04.01.2008 had not given its consent. The pay-scale of Assistant Review Officers and Routine Grade Clerks are entire (sic) different. The revised pay-scale of the Routine Grade Clerk is Rs. 5500-20200 with a Grade Pay of Rs.1900 whereas, the pay-scale of Lower Division Assistant (Assistant Review Officer) is Rs. 5200-20200 with a Grade Pay of Rs.2800. Thus, the pay-scale of the Lower Division Assistant (Assistant Review Officer) is higher than that of the Routine Grade Clerk.

In view of the provisions of Article 229 of the Constitution of India, any Rule relating to salary, allowances, leave or pension made by Hon’ble the Chief Justice require the approval of the Governor of the State. We have also been informed that a Review Application has been filed in the aforesaid two Special Appeals which is pending decision.

We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that notwithstanding anything contained in Article 229 of the Constitution of India, the Representationists be given the benefit of the judgement dated 20.09.2011 passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid two Special Appeals. As the Division Bench has held that the condition stipulated in the appointment letters of all the incumbents looses force and at another place it has held that the cadre of Routine Grade Clerk was declared as ‘dead cadre’ and merged with the cadre of Assistant Review Officer, the Committee is of the view that these Representationists be treated as appointed on probation of one year under Rule 32 of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the High Court Rules) and confirmed

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 10 of 29 on the post on which they have been appointed after one year from the date of appointment under Rule 33 of the High Court Rules and they be given all consequential benefits including promotion from the date their juniors have been promoted.

In the order it should be specifically mentioned that their confirmation and promotions etc. shall be subject to the orders which may be passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the Review Application filed by the High Court.

The office has further given a list of 13 persons excluding the 7 Representationists.

The Committee finds that 6 person namely, Smt. Sushma Singh, S.Sri. Bikas Tanu Goswami, Samyadeep Ganguly, Sandeep Kumar Ojha, Kaushal Kishore and Indu Singh have been appointed as Routine Grade Clerks by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on various dates. Their appointment has been made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice under Rule 45 of the High Court Rules. Their appointments have not been made on, ad hoc basis. Therefore, their initial appointment is to be treated as appointment on probation for a period of one year in accordance with Rule 32 of the High Court Rules and they are entitled for being confirmed after one year under Rule 33.

The Committee, therefore, recommends that these persons be confirmed after expiry of one year and be given all consequential benefits including promotion from the date their juniors have been promoted.

So far as, the remaining 7 persons namely S/Sri Dharmendra Singh Rathor, Ram Prakash Yadav, Ratnank Mishra, Mohd. F.N. Siddiqui, Saif Husain, Ashish Srivastava and Sanjeev Kumar Sharma are concerned, they have been appointed as ad hoc Routine Grade Clerks on various dates. No Rule has been framed by the High Court for regularization of ad hoc employees. Sub-clause (2) of Rule 40 of the High Court Rules provide that in respect of all matters (not provided for in these Rules) regarding the conditions of service of officers and servants of the Court, including matters relating to their product, control and discipline, the Rules and orders for the time being in force and applicable to Government servants holding corresponding posts in the Government of Uttar Pradesh shall apply to the officers and servants of the Court subject to such modifications, variations and exceptions, if any, as the Chief Justice may, from time to time, specify.

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 11 of 29 Their (sic) being no other provisions for regularization of the adhoc employees of this Court, the Rules made by the State Government in this behalf shall apply. The State Government has framed the U.P. regularization of Adhoc appointments (on posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the regularization Rules 1979). As the Hon’ble Chief Justice has not issued any order for modifications, variations and exceptions, the aforesaid rule in terms without any modification would apply. In the said Regularization Rules, 1979, cut-off date provided in Rule 4(i) is 30th June 1998. As all these persons have been appointed on 02.09.2004 or thereafter, they cannot be given the benefit of Regularization Rules, 1979.

The Committee, therefore, recommends as follows:

A. The following persons be confirmed on the post on which they have been appointed after one year from the date of appointment by treating their appointment on probation in accordance with Rules 32 and 33 of the High Court Rules and they be given all consequential benefits including promotion from the date their juniors have been promoted.

In the order, it should be specifically mentioned that their promotion and confirmation, etc. shall be subject to the orders which may be passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the Review Application filed by the High Court.

S No. Employee No. Name S/Sri

1. 7158 Barmeshwar Pandey

2. 7159 Tej Singh

3. 7160 Anand Pal Singh

4. 7161 Ajeet Kumar Shrivastava

5. 5900 Santosh Kumar Tiwari

6. 7163 Abhishek

7. 7164 Sharad Kumar

B. The following persons be confirmed after the expiry

of one year from the date of their appointment and be given all

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 12 of 29 consequential benefits including promotion from the date their juniors have been promoted.

S No. Name S/Sri

1. Smt. Sushma Singh

2. Bikas Tanu Goswami

3. Samyadeep Ganguly

4. Sandeep Kumar Ojha

5. Kaushal Kishore

6. Indu Singh

C. The following persons have been appointed on

02.09.2004 or thereafter, therefore, they cannot be given the benefit of Regularization Rules, 1979.

S No. Name S/Sri

1. Dharmendra Singh Rathor

2. Ram Prakash Yadav

3. Ratnank Mishra

4. Mohd. F.N. Siddiqui

5. Saif Husain

6. Ashish Srivastava

7. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

D. Their claim for regularization can be considered only

after Hon’ble the Chief Justice makes any Rule for regularization or pass any order varying the Regularization Rules, 1979.

Let the report be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for passing appropriate orders.

Sd/- Sd/- (Justice Ashok Bhushan) (Justice R.K. Agrawal)”

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 13 of 29

10. Other representations were also decided by the Committee on

different dates, relying on the said report assigning similar reasons.

In the interest of brevity, we are mentioning about, but not quoting

the other orders.

11. Thereafter, vide order of the High Court dated 10.07.2012 issued

by the Registrar General, 12 persons who were recommended by the

Committee, were regularized and confirmed on the post of Regular

Grade Clerk after one year from the date of initial appointment and

further promoted to the post of Review Officer (R.O.) on the same date.

12. Out of the employees who were not recommended by the

Committee, some of them were communicated with the order of

rejection of their representation vide OM No. 9514/2012 dated

06.06.2012, making reference to the order of the Chief Justice dated

01.06.2012.

13. The Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 428-430 of 2022, claiming

parity with other employees insofar as regularization is concerned,

made the representation dated 18.09.2012 to the Registrar General of

the High Court. Material placed before us reflects that such

representation was rejected and vide an undated and unnumbered

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 14 of 29 communication of August 2013 purportedly signed by Deputy

Registrar (Establishment) which disposed of the same with the

following relevant observation –

“Thus, who have become over age be given relaxation in age in next examinations provided they possess minimum qualification to appointment.”

14. The above undated and unnumbered communication was sought

to be challenged by the Appellants in Writ Petition No. 5287 (S/S) of

2013 and Judgment dated 20.09.2011 passed in Special Appeal No.

563 of 2008 by High Court was sought to be implemented in respect

of Appellants. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition,

and the Division Bench on 14.10.2015 affirmed the same vide the

impugned judgment, directing that the Appellants, if eligible, shall be

granted age relaxation for participation in future recruitment

processes.

15. Insofar as the Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 431 of 2022 is

concerned, he filed Writ-A No. 55500 of 2013 asking to quash letter

dated 02.08.2013 of Registrar General and seeking regularization. A

writ in nature of mandamus was sought commanding the Respondent

to regularize and confirm him on the post of Routine Grade Clerk. The

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 15 of 29 judgment dated 20.09.2011 passed in Special Appeal No. 563/2008

of the High Court was also relied upon in the Writ Petition, which

came to be allowed vide order dated 31.10.2014. Nonetheless, the

Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 30.10.2015 allowed

the Special Appeal No. 1109 of 2014 as preferred by the Respondent

and set aside the judgment of Single Judge.

16. In the above sequel of facts, the present appeals have been

preferred by the Appellants herein.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPELLANTS

17. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the Appellants,

submitted that the appointments were not casual or irregular, but

traceable directly to Rule 8(a)(i) of 1976 rules, which enables

recruitment “in any manner as the Chief Justice may direct”. The

residuary powers of the Chief Justice under Rules 41 and 45 further

reinforce the validity of such appointments. Therefore, the

appointment of the Appellants was legal, duly authorized, and had

the same status as that of those persons whose services were later

regularized.

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 16 of 29

18. It was urged that the High Court had, by way of various office

orders, implemented the earlier Division Bench directions vide

judgment dated 20.09.2011 by regularizing similar persons appointed

by the Chief Justice. Failure to consider the Appellants on similar

terms constitutes glaring example of hostile discrimination, violating

Articles 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India.

19. It was finally submitted, remanding the matter at this stage, to

the High Court for reconsideration, in particular, after two decades

would result in grave injustice. Therefore, this Court ought to issue

final directions, if necessary, in exercise of the inherent powers of this

Court.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT

20. Learned counsel for the Respondents, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi,

submitted with vehemence that appointments outside the competitive

channel must not be regularized and that the High Court retains the

discretion to determine its staffing patterns. It was argued that

regularization is not the right of an employee, and the administrative

authorities are entitled to regulate the staffing strength of the

institution.

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 17 of 29

21. It was urged that the Division Bench correctly held that ad-hoc

appointments do not confer entitlement of regularization and that the

direction enabling the Appellants to participate in future selections

with age relaxation was adequate remedy. It was further contended

that the Division Bench judgment dated 20.09.2011 passed by the

High Court in Special Appeal No. 563 of 2008 sought to be relied upon

by the Appellants, has been effectively overruled by a Full bench

decision of the High Court in In Re: Regularization of Class IV

Employees of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad6 vide

judgment dated 18.09.2013. Therefore, interference in these Appeals

is not warranted.

ANALYSIS AND REASONS

22. Upon perusal of the record of the appeals and submissions made

by the learned counsels for the parties, the short question which falls

for our consideration is whether the differential treatment accorded to

similarly situated employees is sustainable in the facts of the present

case and, what relief is appropriate in the present case, if any?

6 2013:AHC:179951-FB

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 18 of 29

23. The material placed before us during course of hearing of these

appeals establishes that numerous employees identically appointed

as Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants / Routine Grade Clerks

under the orders of the Chief Justice of the High Court in exercise of

powers under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules have been

regularized as a consequence of the Report of the Committee. From a

bare perusal of the said report, we can decipher that the Committee

has dealt with the representations of three categories of employees in

the following manner -

Category Names of the Recommendation Reason Thereof Employees of the Committee Category A 1. Barmeshwar These persons be The appointment letter Pandey confirmed on the dated 01.09.2004 2. Tej Singh post on which they stipulates the 3. Anand Pal have been appointment to be ad Singh appointed after hoc appointment with a 4. Ajeet Kumar one year from the condition that these Srivastava date of people shall be 5. Santosh appointment on permitted to appear in Kumar Tiwari probation in the examination/test to 6. Abhishek accordance with be held for direct 7. Sharad Rules 32 and 33 of recruitment of Routine Kumar the High Court Grade Clerk and their Rules and they be appointment shall be given all the regularized and consequential confirmed only after benefits. they are selected in that examination.

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 19 of 29 The Judgment of Division Bench dated 20.09.2011 notes that once the cadre of Routine Grade Clerk has been declared to be ‘dead cadre’, the stipulation of examination loses force and thus, these people be treated as appointed on probation of 1 year under Rule 32 and 33 of 1976 Rules. Category B 1. Smt. Sushma These persons be These appointments Singh confirmed after the have been made by 2. Bikas Tanuexpiry of one year Hon’ble the Chief Goswami from the date of Justice under Rule 45 of 3. Samyadeep their appointment High Court Rules and Ganguly and be given all not on ad-hoc basis. 4. Sandeep the consequential Kumar Ojha benefits. Therefore, their initial 5. Kaushal appointment is to be Kishore treated as appointment 6. Indu Singh on probation for a period of one year in accordance with Rule 32 & 33 of High Court Rules. Category C 1. Dharmendra These people have These appointments

Singh Rathor been appointed on have been made on ad-

2. Ram Prakash 02.09.2004 or hoc basis on post of Yadav thereafter, Routine Grade Clerks.

3. Ratnank therefore, they No rule has been framed Mishra cannot be given by the High Court for

4. Md. F.N. the benefit of U.P. Regularization of ad-hoc Siddiqui Regularization of employees.

5. Saif Husain Ad-hoc

6. Ashish Appointments (On Rule 40(2) of the 1976 Srivastava Posts Outside the Rules provide that in

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 20 of 29

7. Sanjeev Kumar Purview of the respect of all matters Sharma Public Service (not provided for in Commission) these rules) regarding Rules, 1979. Their the conditions of service claim for of officers and servants regularization can of the court, including be considered only matters relating to after Hon’ble Chief product, control and Justice makes any discipline, the Rules rule for and orders for the time regularization or being in force and pass any order applicable to varying the Government Servants Regularization holding corresponding Rules, 1979. posts in the Government of Uttar Pradesh shall apply to the officers and servants of the court subject to such modifications, variations and exceptions, if any, as the Chief Justice may, from time to time, specify.

As per the U.P. Regularization of Ad- hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, these people have been appointed after the cut- off date prescribed therein. Hence they cannot be given the benefit of regularization.

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 21 of 29

24. Upon a query being put to the learned counsel for the

Respondents, she was unable to point out any reasonable distinction

and factors apart from relying on the recommendations of the

Committee. It is said that the reasons as assigned in the report of the

Committee justifies disparate treatment between the Appellants and

other similarly situated employees who were appointed through same

channel i.e. in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Chief Justice

under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of 1976 Rules. It has been contended

that the distinguishing factor is that the initial appointment of the

Respondents was ‘ad-hoc’ in nature, though others were not. Be that

as it may, it is clear that the channel of appointment for the persons

who have been regularized and the Respondents herein is through the

exercise of the powers vested in the Chief Justice of the High Court

under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules.

25. The distinction in treatment of Appellants (‘Category C’ employees

in table contained in paragraph 23 hereinabove) is sought to be

justified by the Respondent due to the stipulation in the appointment

order of the Appellants as ‘ad hoc’ and without there being any rules

for regularization of such employees, benefit of regularization cannot

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 22 of 29 be given. At this juncture, it must be said that in case of ‘Category A’

employees also, the appointments were ‘ad-hoc’ in nature, however in

their appointment orders, there was a stipulation for an examination

for regularization. It is not the case of the Respondent that the said

examination was ever conducted for them. Rather, the Committee

report dated 31.05.2012 found that the stipulation of an examination

has become otiose in light of the observations by the Division Bench

in its judgment dated 20.09.2011.

26. As far as ‘Category B’ employees are concerned, the reason why

they have been recommended to be regularized by the Committee is

that their appointment was not stipulated to be on ad-hoc basis.

However, it has not been disputed that ‘Category B’ employees were

also appointed in pursuance to the exercise of powers of the Chief

Justice under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of 1976 Rules.

27. In the conspectus of these facts, the distinction sought to be

established by the Respondents between the Appellants and ‘Category

A’ employees as well as between the Appellants and ‘Category B’

employees, in our considered view is arbitrary, unreasonable and

superficial. Such arbitrariness and unreasonableness becomes

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 23 of 29 evident in light of the principles as enshrined in Article 14 of

Constitution of India. All three categories of employees i.e., Category

A, Category B, and Category C (the Appellants), were appointed

through the same channel of recruitment, namely the exercise of

powers vested in the Chief Justice under Rules 8(a)(i), 41, and 45 of

the 1976 Rules sans following the regular recruitment process. Merely

because the appointment orders contained different stipulations

regarding the nature of appointment i.e. whether labeled ad-hoc or

not, or whether containing a condition for examination or not, cannot

be a rational basis for differential treatment for purpose of

regularization when the channel of such appointments is identical.

28. In the facts of this case, such a distinction solely on the basis of

stipulations as contained in the appointment letter, when the nature

of work performed is identical, violates the fundamental principle that

equals must be treated equally and persons similarly circumstanced

should not be treated differently without a rational and intelligible

differentia.

29. High Courts, being Constitutional Courts entrusted to uphold

equality and fairness, are expected to encompass such principles

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 24 of 29 within their own administrative functioning as well, and must

exemplify the standards of a model employer. Such principles are at

the risk of being undermined when discriminatory treatment is meted

out to employees similarly situated within the same establishment.

Such actions pose grave threat to the sacrosanct principles of non-

arbitrariness and reasonableness as enshrined under Articles 14, 16

and 21 of the Constitution of India.

30. In light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the

Appellants have been caused grave prejudice by the Respondents, in

respect of rejection of their representations for regularization, though

similarly placed employees have been granted the same, without there

being any reasonable distinction between them.

31. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the Respondent

also submitted that the post on which the Appellants were appointed,

i.e. ‘Routine Grade Clerk’, is now a dead cadre and it has merged with

the post of ‘Computer Assistants’ as per the Allahabad High Court

Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) (Amendment)

Rules, 2019 which requires computer qualifications and knowledge,

i.e. data entry, word processing, etc., therefore direction for

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 25 of 29 regularization cannot be issued. In our view, such argument is also

not fair and reasonable in particular, looking to the report of the

Committee, as a result of which, similarly situated persons were

granted the benefit of regularization after one year from their date of

their initial appointment while also extending the benefit of

promotion. Once, as per the discussion made hereinabove, it has been

found that the distinction drawn between Category A, B and C

employees is not based on any reasonable classification or intelligible

differentia, denial of similar relief to the Appellants on the pretext of

subsequent amendment in the rules, is not acceptable.

32. It has also been argued by the Respondent that the Division

Bench judgment dated 20.09.2011 has been effectively overruled by

the judgment of the full bench of the High Court in In Re:

Regularization (Supra). Without going into the merits of this

submission, there is no gainsaying that the genesis of the

discrimination which has been meted out to the Appellants can be

traced back to the report of the Committee way back in the year 2012.

The artificial distinction drawn between the Appellants and other

similarly situated employees is the discrimination which must be

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 26 of 29 weeded out in pursuit of justice. It has further been informed that the

services of the Appellants have been dispensed with by the High Court

with immediate effect vide order dated 15.09.2015 of the Registrar

General, and for this reason also it has been contended that they are

not entitled for regularization. In our considered opinion, once we

have taken a view that the judgment passed by the High Court

denying relief of regularization was not in accordance with law, such

a submission does not hold water particularly in light of the manifest

discrimination which is palpably clear and evinced from the record.

33. While we are cognizant of the fact that ordinarily regularization

is a matter best left to policy decisions of the employer, and courts

must exercise restraint in issuing directions. However, the present

case is exceptional. The Appellants have rendered over a decade of

service. Numerous similarly placed employees who were employed

through same channel of appointment have been regularized.

Therefore, with a view to render complete justice in the peculiar facts

and circumstances of the present case, in our view, this is a fit case

for exercising our inherent powers under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India to issue final operative directions.

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 27 of 29 CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS

34. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned judgments

passed by the High Court and in exercise of our inherent powers

under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, issue the following

directions:

A. Appellants shall be reinstated on the post on which they were

working at the time of their discontinuance;

B. Respondent shall regularize the service of the Appellants

after one year from their respective dates of appointment;

C. During the period in which the Appellants remained out of

service, they would be entitled to all consequential benefits,

including seniority, promotion, pay fixation, increments,

retiral benefits (if applicable), etc., except for the salary for

the period that they have not worked;

D. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with, within a

period of 8 weeks from the date of this judgment.

35. It is made clear that the directions issued hereinabove and the

observations made in the present judgment are limited to the facts

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 28 of 29 and circumstances of these appeals, and shall in no manner or form

be treated as a precedent.

36. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed in terms of the directions

as contained in paragraph 34. There shall be no orders as to cost.

Pending applications, if any, shall be disposed of.

………………………. J.

(J.K. MAHESHWARI)

………………………. J.

(VIJAY BISHNOI)

NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 19, 2025.

Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 29 of 29