KRISHNA KUMAR MISHRAversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

                                       .

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 359 of 2026

Krishna Kumar Mishra
                                                                  .....Appellant(s)
                                    Versus

The State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                             .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)         : Ram Pal Singh, Shyam Sundar Pal,
                                   Vinod Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : C.S.C.

Court No. - 3
                HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
                HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2026

1. Heard     Sri   Vinod   Kumar,    learned    counsel     for     the   original
petitioner/appellant and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel representing the State respondents.

2. Present appeal has been filed with a delay of 14 days.

3. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.
Delay condonation application is allowed.

Order on Appeal

4. The present intra-court appeal has arisen against the common judgment
and order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the learned single judge in Krishna
Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Others along with connected writ
petition, 2026:AHC:44053.

5. By that order, the learned single judge has dismissed the two writ petitions
filed by the petitioner. Thus, his claim for regularisation in service has been
rejected.

6. Submission is, the claim of the petitioner had arisen under the Uttar
Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointments (on posts outside the
                                                              SPLAD No. 359 of 2026
                                  2


purview of the Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules,
2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The said Rules came into
force on 20.12.2001. By way of eligibility conditions, the Rules read as
below:-

     "(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 appointment in permanent
     10. temporary vacancy, as may be 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."

7. Thus, for a valid claim to arise, the claimant must have been appointed
on ad-hoc basis on or before 30.06.1998 and further he must have
continued in service, as such, on 20.12.2001. The other eligibility
conditions qua qualification and work experience, are not in dispute, in
the present facts.

8. Here, undeniably, the original petitioner/appellant was appointed as
Collection Amin on ad-hoc basis, against substantive vacancy that had
arisen upon retirement of one Aditya Prasad Mishra, vide order dated
18.08.1990. Later, by order dated 11.02.1993 passed by the Additional
District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), the petitioner's services were
dispensed on the reasoning that there existed a ban on fresh engagement.
The petitioner being aggrieved, approached this Court by means of Writ
Petition No. 22616 of 1993. Therein, vide order dated 25.06.1993, the
operation and effect of the order dated 11.02.1993 passed by the
Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), was stayed until
                                                              SPLAD No. 359 of 2026
                                  3


further orders. The writ petition itself was disposed of by order dated
17.08.2000, requiring the Collector to decide the petitioner's
representation - with respect to his grievance that his service has been
wrongly dispensed. It is further an admitted fact between the parties that
since disposal of that writ petition on 17.08.2000, the original
petitioner/appellant continued to work as Collection Amin. Besides the
pleadings made in the writ petition (para no. 19 of the writ petition giving
rise to the present intra-Court appeal), in the own document of the State
Authorities dated 16.12.2006, it is recorded that the petitioner had worked
during Fasli 1409 and 1410 (Kharif and Rabi). It would correspond to
year 2001-02.

9. In that circumstance, the petitioner's representation filed in compliance
to the order dated 17.08.2000 (passed in Writ Petition No. 22616 of 1993)
was rejected vide order dated 06.12.2006. Perusal of that order reveals
that no dispute exists with respect to the working of the petitioner during
the period 17.08.2000 to 06.12.2006. His claim for regularisation came to
be rejected for the reason of less recovery made by the petitioner.

10. The said order dated 06.12.2006 was challenged by the petitioner by
means of the Writ Petition No. 71143 of 2006 which has given rise to the
present intra-Court appeal. The petitioner also filed Writ Petition No.
15797 of 2007, wherein interim order was granted on 29.03.2007. Copy
of the said order has been produced during course of the hearing. Both
writ petitions have been dismissed with following observations made by
the learned single judge:-

     "8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court do not
     find any good reason to entertain the claim of the petitioner with regard
     to regularization after his superannuation on 31.12.2024. Since there is
     no ground for consideration of regularization, therefore the petitioner is
     not entitled for any other consequential benefits, specifically in view of
     the Uttar Pradesh Entitlement to Pension and Validation Act, 2025 as
     notified on 02.01.2026. However, it is made clear that if any amount with
     regard to the provident fund or insurance etc. has been deducted from the
     salary of the petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, he is
     entitled for payment thereof, the said amount would be paid to the
                                                          SPLAD No. 359 of 2026
                                  4


     petitioner in accordance with law."

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, first, claim for regularisation may arise and be governed strictly in
terms of the statutory rules. Those have been quoted above. Relevant to the
present, in absence of any other dispute as to the eligibility of the petitioner
to seek regularisation, it also cannot be disputed that the petitioner was
appointed/engaged as an ad-hoc Collection Amin before 30.06.1998, vide
order dated 18.08.1990. In view of the further discussion made above, it also
cannot be disputed that he continued to work up to the date 20.12.2001,
when the Rules were enforced.

12. Seen in that light, the petitioner's claim to regularisation was wholly
maintainable. The fact that he may have worked under interim order of
this Court he did not earn any disability or ineligibility, inasmuch as the
said interim order only protected the tenure of his working under the
appointment order dated 18.08.1990. As noted above, that order clearly
exists. Recognising the same, the writ Court had not only allowed for his
continued working (in Writ Petition No. 22616 of 1993) but had disposed
of the writ petition vide order dated 17.08.2000, allowing for the
petitioner's representation to be decided in terms of Jawahar Lal and
others vs. The District Magistrate Kanpur Dehat and Others, [1995 (2)
E.S.C. 38 (All)].

13. Thereafter, the State Government introduced the Rules w.e.f.
20.12.2001. To the extent, the petitioner's representation was not dealt with
or decided before enforcement of those statutory rules, the petitioner
remained well within his rights to claim regularisation under the Rules, after
their enforcement w.e.f. 20.12.2001.

14. To the extent, the Rules do not provide for any other criteria for the
purposes of regularisation except as has been discussed above, it did not
become open to the authorities - to reject the claim for regularisation, on
other grounds.

15. Statutory rules, by their very nature, carry legislative force. Thus,
once that legislative action had intervened, the rights of the petitioner/his
claim came to be governed on that strength. Thus, irrespective of the fate
                                                               SPLAD No. 359 of 2026
                                   5


of the representation made by the petitioner in compliance to the order
dated 17.08.2000 passed by the writ Court, the petitioner became entitled
to raise an independent claim for regularisation in terms of the Rules.

16. Further, to the extent, the petitioner's representation and/or claim for
regularisation may have arisen subsequent to the enforcement of the
Rules, may also not be cited as an ineligibility earned by the petitioner,
inasmuch as it is admitted to the State respondents that despite disposal of
the Writ Petition No. 22616 of 1993, vide order dated 17.08.2000 and in
absence of any interim protection granted thereafter, the respondent
authority allowed the petitioner to continue to work as Collection Amin,
till the enforcement of the Rules, on 20.12.2001. In fact, he continued to
work in that capacity till 23.02.2007 when his service was finally
terminated.

17. Thus, it is clear to us - even if the petitioner may not have been
otherwise entitled to regularisation on the post of Collection Amin, before
20.12.2001, in the framework of the laws, as they existed before
enforcement of the Rules, the relevance of that issue did not survive after
enforcement of the Rules on 20.12.2001. The Rules created a right (to
regularisation), in favour of the petitioner, afresh and independent of
similar right that he may have claimed, on any other (pre-existing) law.

18. Once the Rules came to be enforced, the petitioner's claim for
regularisation had to be considered on the strength of those statutory
Rules. To the extent, the petitioner is seen to have fulfilled the conditions
for regularisation - inasmuch as, his appointment on ad-hoc basis was
within the cut-off date i.e. 30.06.1998, and he continued to be engaged up
to and well beyond the end date i.e. 20.12.2001, he could not have been
declined regularisation in service - on the strength of those statutory
Rules.

19. In comparable facts in Prem Sagar Vs. State of U.P. and Others,
2026 SCC OnLine All 1690, one of us (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.), held as
below:-

     "27. Rule 8 of the above mentioned rule, makes it clear that the service of
     a person appointed on ad-hoc basis, who is not found suitable or whose
                                                           SPLAD No. 359 of 2026
                              6


case is not covered by sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of Regularisation Rules,
1979, shall be determined forthwith and on such termination, he shall be
entitled to receive one month pay. The provision shows that the State has
made provisions keeping in mind the welfare and protection of employees
and to terminate service of only those who are not covered under Rule
4(1) of the Regularisation Rules, 1979 and therefore, writ court shall
have interfered with the termination order, which was impugned in Writ A
19783 of 2024.

28. Rules 9 and 10 of the Regularisation Rules, 1979 make provisions to
include all persons who were directly appointed on an ad-hoc basis on or
before 01.05.1983 and 01.10.1986, and who have continued in service in
that capacity. These provisions reflect the intent of the State, as a model
employer, to safeguard the interests of employees who have rendered
continuous service but have not yet been regularised, particularly to
ensure that they do not lose their legitimate benefits towards the fag end
of their employment. Thus, the object of these Rules is to cover the
maximum number of ad-hoc appointees in continuous service and to
facilitate their regularisation, except in cases where the conditions
specified under Rule 4(1) of the Regularisation Rules, 1979 are not
satisfied. Rule 4(1) prescribes only three conditions for eligibility, first,
that the initial appointment must have been made on or before
31.12.2001, second, that the employee must have qualifications, and
third, that the employee shall have continuous service for a minimum
period of three years. Therefore, the denial of regularisation to the
appellant, despite clear and sufficient proof that he fulfils all three
conditions prescribed under Rule 4(1) of the Regularisation Rules, 1979,
cannot be justified.

.....

31. The State, being a model employer, cannot be permitted to rely on
strict technicalities of initial appointment to deny regularisation to an
employee who has rendered long and uninterrupted service spanning over
three decades, particularly when the Rules do not provide that continuous
service rendered in pursuant to a Court's order, disqualifies an employee
from claiming the benefits of regularisation.
                                                              SPLAD No. 359 of 2026
                                7


.....

33. It is an established principle of law that the State being a model
employer is obligated to discharge its functions as per fair administrative
rules. A model employer is expected to act with fairness and also bears
the responsibilities to treat his employees in a manner, which is
reasonable and therefore, the respondents cannot be permitted to take
services and exploit the young age of the employees for more than three
decades while ignoring his legitimate expectation and discontinue his
services without any reasonable and speaking order near his age of
superannuation. The Constitutional mandate cast upon the State as a
model employer is at much higher level than that of any other employer
and therefore, the impugned order before learned single judge deserved
more attention in writ jurisdiction than the question of initial appointment
in the year 1992.

.....

38. The Supreme Court has expressed consistently maintained its
disapproval of the State's actions in avoiding regularisation after availing
services from employees. This position is further affirmed in Shripal and
Another (supra), where it was held that:

        "14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi
        (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees
        cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of
        statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as
        frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between
        appointments that are "illegal" and those that are
        "irregular", the latter being eligible for regularization if they
        meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot
        serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements
        persisting for years without the Employer undertaking
        legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true
        contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for
        permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on
        fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-
        wage status or continued unfair practices.
                                                          SPLAD No. 359 of 2026
                              8


      15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously
      rendered their services over several years, sometimes
      spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls
      were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish
      such records-despite directions to do so- allows an adverse
      inference under well-established labour jurisprudence.
      Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or
      contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is
      permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil
      ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be
      dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the
      absence of a genuine contractor agreement..."

39. Reinforcing the above position, the Supreme Court in Dharam Singh
and Others (supra), it is held as follows:

      "11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance
      placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non-suit the
      appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the
      challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the
      constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge
      to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the
      employer's own acknowledgement of need and decades of
      continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other
      hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal
      appointments and irregular engagements and does not
      endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where
      the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for
      years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this
      Court in Jaggo v. Union of India4 and in Shripal v. Nagar
      Nigam, Ghaziabad5 have emphatically cautioned that
      Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify
      exploitation through long-term "ad hocism", the use of
      outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where
      identical duties are exacted over extended periods..."

40. Even for the contractual conditions where the employee might have
                                                                SPLAD No. 359 of 2026
                                    9


     agreed in the contract, the Supreme Court has not supported the
     continuous engagement without regularisation and granted benefits,
     whereas in the facts of the case the appellant was providing continuous
     services for decades and was getting due salary along with all benefits
     like regular employees but he has not been regularized instead arbitrarily
     removed, and therefore in the facts of the case, the interference is
     warranted to enforce the rights of the appellant.

     41. In view of the foregoing analysis of the facts, the submissions of the
     parties, and the relevant legal provisions, we are of the considered view
     that the findings recorded by the learned single judge is incorrect, hence,
     the impugned order is accordingly set aside. The appellant, having
     rendered long, continuous, and uninterrupted service for over three
     decades, with full salary, allowances, increments and other benefits, has
     a legitimate expectation and clearly satisfies the conditions prescribed
     under Rule 4(1) of the Regularisation Rules, 1979.

     42. Accordingly, the special appeal is allowed. The respondents are
     directed to regularise the services of the appellant forthwith under the
     Regularisation Rules, 1979, with all consequential benefits in accordance
     with law. The respondents shall implement this direction within a period
     of ninety days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No
     further orders as to costs."

                                                          (emphasis supplied)

20. In view of the above, we find that an error on principle has crept in the
order of the writ Court. It may have remained to be considered by learned
single judge that in view of the continued engagement of the petitioner
against ad-hoc appointment, he had earned a right to be regularised in
service, on the strength of the Rules, on 20.12.2001. In view of the same,
he would be entitled to all consequential relief.

21. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The order of learned
single judge is set aside. The writ petition is also allowed. Let order be
passed by the Appropriate Authority, providing for regularisation of the
petitioner in service as Collection Amin w.e.f. 20.12.2001 with all
consequential benefits.
                                                                                      SPLAD No. 359 of 2026
                                                                 10


                                    22. Monetary benefits may be computed and paid out to the petitioner
                                    within a period of three months. His retiral dues may accordingly be
                                    computed and paid out within a further period of three months.

                                    23. No order as to costs.



                                                     (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    #Vikram/-




Digitally signed by :-
VIKRAM GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad