Allahabad High Court
STATE OF UP AND ANOTHERversusJABIR ALI
- Decided
Holding
The intra‑court appeal is dismissed; the single judge’s order granting regularisation and the 50% back‑wage award stands.
Summary
The petitioner, Jabir Ali, claimed retrenchment and initiated an industrial dispute (Industrial Case No. 47 of 2006). The Labour Court awarded his reinstatement with full back wages, later modified by the High Court to 50% back wages in Writ Petition No. 22591 of 2008. He was reinstated in March 2014 but his request for regularisation was denied on 20 March 2015, leading to a writ petition seeking quashing of that order and mandamus for regularisation on a Class IV post. The single judge allowed the petition, relying on the Labour Court award, the U.P. Regularisation Rules, 2001, and the Supreme Court decision in State of U.P. v. Putti Lal. The State appealed, seeking condonation of delay, but the intra‑court appeal was dismissed, upholding the single judge’s order and confirming the petitioner’s entitlement to regularisation and the reduced back‑wage award.
Issues considered
- Whether the order dated 20‑03‑2015 denying regularisation of the petitioner is legally valid.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularisation on a Class IV post from the date his junior was regularised.
- Whether the reduced back‑wage award (50% of full back wages) is consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in State of U.P. v. Putti Lal.
- Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned.
Subjects
- regularisation
- industrial dispute
- reinstatement
- back wages
- delay condonation
- intra‑court appeal
- labour court award
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 716 of 2026
State Of Up And Another
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Jabir Ali
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C., Tej Bhanu Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Court No. - 39
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
Re: C.M. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2026
1. Cause shown sufficient. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. Application is allowed.
Order on Appeal
3. Having heard Shri T.B. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-
appellant and Shri Sachin Dubey, learned counsel for the original
petitioner/respondent and having perused the record, we find absolutely no
good ground to interfere with the order of the learned single judge dated
19.05.2026 in Jabir Singh vs State of U.P. & Anr., 2026:AHC:116021.
4. The case has a checkered history. Earlier, the petitioner had claimed
retrenchment which led to the institution of a industrial dispute, being
Industrial Case No. 47 of 2006. Vide award of the Labour Court dated
23.12.2006, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with full back wages.
Thus, continuity of petitioner's services with effect from October 1987 was
ensured by the judicial officer. The award of the Labour Court was modified
to a limited extent, vide order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the writ Court in
Writ Petition No. 22591 of 2008, whereby the only modification made was
to provide for payment of 50% back wages instead of full back wages. That
order of the writ Court has attained finality.
5. Though the order of the Labour Court to reinstate the petitioner in service
attained finality, he was reinstated in service, with some delay, on
12.03.2014. Pursuant thereto, he joined with delay, on 15.03.2014. Working
SPLAD No. 716 of 2026
2
in that capacity, claim of regularization in service was declined to the
petitioner, by means of order dated 20.03.2015. That order was made subject
matter of challenge giving rise to the present proceedings. For ready
reference, relief claimed in the writ petition reads as below:
"a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated
20.03.2015 passed by Respondent No. 2 (Annexure - 6) to the writ petition.
b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to
Regularize the petitioner on Class IV post from the date his juniors had been promoted
with all consequential benefits."
6. There is no dispute to the fact that the persons junior to the petitioner had
been regularized in terms of U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages
Appointments on Group 'D' Post Rules, 2001. That fact was also recorded in
the award of the Labour Court, referred to above.
7. In that circumstance, writ Court has rightly found petitioner fully entitled
to regularization from the date his next junior was regularized. As to the
payment of 50% back wages at the rate minimum of pay scale, the law is not
in doubt in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs
Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337.
8. To the extent the right of the petitioner to be regularized in service is fully
protected in terms of order of the Labour Court that had long attained
finality and further in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
Putti Lal (supra), consequential relief granted in terms of the law declared
by the Putti Lal (supra) is wholly in accordance with law. The order of the
learned single judge does not suffer from any infirmity.
9. Accordingly, the present intra-Court appeal is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
October 1, 2026
Prakhar
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…