Allahabad High Court
AVINASH KUMAR SRIVASTAVAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner’s claim of arbitrariness was unsupported by material evidence and therefore dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Avinash Kumar Srivastava, was initially appointed as a daily‑wage steno‑cum‑typist in 1990 and later converted to a co‑adunate employee, with his regularisation pending while juniors were regularised earlier. He filed a writ petition seeking regularisation effective from 1 April 2011, which was initially dismissed, leading to a contempt petition and subsequent orders. The High Court eventually regularised him on 14 December 2023 but the petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the effective date should be 1 April 2011. The Court examined the petitioner’s evidence, including a chart and a document dated 26 June 2025, and found no substantive proof of arbitrariness. Relying on the lack of material evidence and distinguishing the present case from Prem Singh v. State of U.P., the Court declined to grant relief, disposing of the writ petition while allowing the petitioner to approach the respondent with fresh evidence if available.
Issues considered
- The appropriate effective date of the petitioner's regularisation
- Whether the respondents acted arbitrarily in granting regularisation on 14 December 2023
- Whether the petitioner provided sufficient documentary evidence to support a claim of arbitrariness
- Whether the writ petition should be granted or dismissed
Subjects
- regularisation
- arbitrariness
- employment law
- writ petition
- administrative discretion
- seniority
- procedural fairness
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 17540 of 2024
Avinash Kumar Srivastava
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., J. N. Maurya, Sunil Kumar Misra
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1.Heard Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J. N.
Maurya, Chief Standing Counsel.
2. Petitioner has claimed that he was firstly appointed on the post of steno-cum-typist
as daily wager on 1.12.1990 and was granted consolidated salary from 17.11.1997 as a
daily wager.
3. Subsequently, petitioner’s category was changed as co-adunate (regular but not
permanent) employee in the office of respondent no.2.
4. Subsequently, petitioner’s claim for regularization remained pending and while
some of his juniors were regularized with effect from earlier dates.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner filed a Writ Petition bearing No.4338 of
2020 that he may be regularized since 1.4.2011, which was disposed of vide an order
dated 17.6.2020, that claim of the petitioner be considered in the light of judgements
referred therein and when it was not complied with, petitioner filed a Contempt
Petition No.3308 of 2021.
6. During pendency of Contempt Petition, an order dated 14.9.2021, was passed where
by claim of petitioner for regularization was rejected which was the subject matter of
Writ Petition bearing No.5832 of 2021, which was allowed vide an order dated 23.3.2
023, wherein order dated 4.3.2021 was set-aside and matter was remanded to
concerned respondent to ensure that regularization order be passed by the competent
authority.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, order dated 14.12.2023, was passed whereby the
petitioner was regularized however with effect from the date of the order as a fresh
appointment.
8. Order dated 14.12.2023 is under challenge before this Court mainly on a ground
that petitioner ought to have been regularized from the earlier date i.e. 1.4.2011 when
WRIA No. 17540 of 2024
2
his juniors were regularized.
9. In order to support the aforesaid claim and to show that petitioner has suffered with
arbitrariness, learned counsel for the petitioner refers a chart mentioned in the writ
petition, however, Court finds that basis of said chart is not supported by any
document such as respective orders of regularization of juniors to the petitioner
therefore, this Court has no material to accept the submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner in respect of arbitrariness.
10. Court also takes note of a document dated 26.6.2025, however still it is not clear
as to how the claim of the petitioner of arbitrariness is correct.
11. Court also takes note of a judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, 2019 (10)
SCC 516, wherein the issue of denial of regularization of some of the employees were
considered, whereas in present case dispute is of the effective date of regularization.
12. In the aforesaid circumstances on basis of material available along with this writ
petition, claim of the petitioner that respondents have acted arbitrarily cannot be
accepted, therefore, relief sought cannot be granted. However, still in the interest of
justice, this writ petition is disposed of reserving a liberty to petitioner that in case he
has sufficient material i.e. documentary evidence that respondents have acted
arbitrarily by fixing different effective date of regularization amongst similarly
situated persons, he may raise a fresh grievance before concern respondent, who will
consider it and if necessary will pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law,
ignoring impugned order.
April 23, 2026 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
SB
Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…