Allahabad High Court
KEDAR NATH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the petitioners are not eligible for regularisation and therefore not entitled to the minimum pay scale.
Summary
Petitioners Kedar Nath and Shiv Govind, employed as Class IV workers in the Uttar Pradesh Forest Department, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State to pay them the minimum pay scale applicable to their posts and to decide on their representation. The State, through its Additional Chief Standing Counsel, contended that the petitioners were daily‑wage workers under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001 and were not eligible for regularisation or the minimum pay scale. The counter‑affidavit, filed in Hindi, asserted that the petitioners were engaged in MGNREGA‑related work and had left the job, thus not qualifying for regularisation. The petitioners did not file a rejoinder to rebut these averments. Relying on the Rules, 2001 and the lack of any rebuttal, the Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the relief claimed and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- The petitioners' entitlement to the minimum pay scale for Class IV forest department posts.
- Whether the petitioners are eligible for regularisation under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001.
- Whether a mandamus can be issued directing the State to decide the petitioners' representation.
Legislation cited
- Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
- Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules — s. 2001
Subjects
- minimum pay
- regularisation
- daily wages
- mandamus
- forest department
- Class IV employee
- Uttar Pradesh
- MGNREGA
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 67216 of 2010
Kedar Nath And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shantanu Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C. S. C.
Court No. - 34
(Sl.No.49.7)
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. None appears for the petitioner. Sri Pradeepta Kumar Shahi, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State is present.
2. The instant petition has been filed with the following prayer:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to pay minimum pay scale of the petitioners
to the post of Class IV employee in the Forest Department.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to decide the representation of the
petitioners within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court."
3. In para-6 of the writ petition, the following averments have been made
by the petitioner:
"6. That the personal details relevant for the relief sought is as follows:
Sl.No. Name of Working Caste Forest Range Post
petitioners since
1. Kedar Nath 1998 S.C. Ghosi D
2. Shiv Govind 1984 O.B.C. Mau D
WRIA No. 67216 of 2010
2
4. In reply thereto, in para-10 of the counter affidavit, the following
averments have been made:
"10. यह िक यिचका के ्ऺस्तर 5 व 6 में विणत कथन स्वीकार नहीं है। इस संबंध में यह
कहना है िक सामािजक वािनकी ्ऺभाग मऊ में वाचर का कोई पद स्वीकृत नहीं है। जैसा िक
उपरो्व ्ऺस्तरों में विणत िकया जा चुका है िक याचीगणों ने दैिनक ्शम पर अल्प अविध के
िलए कायर् िकया . है। वतर्मान में याचीगण कायर्रत नहीं है। दैिनक ्शिमकों के कायर् की कोई
चिर्ऴ पंिजका नहीं रखी जाती है। सामािजक वािनकी ्ऺभाग मऊ में िविभन्न वृ्षारोपण व
नसर्री कायर् वतर्मान में मनरेगा योजनान्तगर्त स्वीकृत ्ऺोजेक्ट में हो रहा है। याची संख्या 1 ्शी
केदारनाथ ने मनरेगा योजनान्तगर्त गिजयापुर पौधशाला में 91 िदन कायर् िकया है, िजसका
भुगतान इन्हे चेक के ्षारा बैंक खाता संख्या 684097 (पंजाब नैशनल बैंक) के माध्यम से
िकया गया है। अगले वषर् यिद ये जाब काडर् लेकर आते और काम मांगते है तो इन्हें घर के
नजदीक वन िवभाग या िकसी भी 'िवभाग ्षारा दैिनक ्शम पर 100 िदन का कायर् िनयमानुसार
िदया जायेगा। मनरेगा अन्तगर्त जाब काडर् धारक को वषर् में 100 िदन का कायर् उपलब्ध कराया
जाता है परन्तु याचीगण स्वतः कायर् छोडकर चले गये और पुनः अब तक कायर् पर वापस नहीं
आये हैं।"
5. The aforesaid averments as made in the counter affidavit has not been
rebutted by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder affidavit despite the
counter affidavit was filed on 25.08.2011.
6. In such view of the matter, the petitioners were not eligible for
regularization in terms of Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages
Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 (in short, 'Rules, 2001').
Consequently, they were not entitled for minimum pay scale as prayed by
them.
7. Accordingly the instant petition is dismissed.
8. Let this case be delinked from bunch matters and shall not be shown in
the cause list.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
May 12, 2026
Ashish Pd.
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH PRASAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…