The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that the right of consideration for regularization does not perish with the death of an employee when that right had already accrued during his lifetime.
The court observed that
“The right of regularization when accrued, travels with the person and in their absence, survives through their legal representatives. The State, being a model employer, is bound to uphold not merely the letter of the contract, but the spirit of fairness, equality and compassion.”
Holding that the deceased employee’s long service could not be allowed to go in vain merely because he died before the regularization process was completed, the court directed that he be deemed to have been regularized from the date on which he became eligible for the benefit.
The order was passed by a single bench of Justice Indrajeet Shukla on a writ petition filed by Hasan Ahmad against the State of U.P. through the Secretary, Rural Engineering Department, and two others.
The petitioner sought reconsideration of his late father Rifakat Hussain’s regularization and consequential consideration of his claim for appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
Rifakat Hussain had initially been engaged as a junior assistant in the Work Charge Establishment of the Rural Engineering Department, Block Hardoi, on November 1, 1985, and had served the department for more than 18 years before his death on August 11, 2012.
Read also: Strong Suspicion Sufficient to Frame Bribery Charge Against Tax Officer: Allahabad High Court
A seniority list prepared for regularization under the U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group-C Posts (Outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998, had placed his name at serial number 58.
The State Government subsequently sanctioned 172 Group-C posts for regularization of daily-wage, work-charge and court-case employees in the Pay Band of Rs. 5,200-20,200, Grade Pay-1,900.
However, Hussain died before his regularization could be undertaken, but other similarly situated employees, were regularized in regularization process.
The court noted that the petitioner’s mother, Zahida Begum, had earlier approached the High Court. In 2018, the court directed the authorities to first consider her husband’s claim for regularization and, if he was found entitled, thereafter consider her claim for appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
Read also: Mere Presence, Relationship Cannot Prove Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Allahabad HC
Despite the direction, the department rejected the claim in 2018 on the ground that Hussain had died before completion of the regularization process. A subsequent writ petition led to another order dated 27.01.2023, setting aside the rejection and directing the authority to consider the claim on merits and extend the same benefit if persons junior to Hussain had been regularized.
The court found that the authority, instead of complying with the binding direction, passed the impugned order dated 17.03.2023, repeating substantially the same reasoning that had already been rejected by the court.
Describing the order as “a standing monument of the stubborn attitude of respondent authorities, attempting and endeavoring to defy the majesty of this Court,” the court held that the conduct was “ex facie contemptuous”.
It further observed that passing an order on the same reasoning after it had already been set aside was prima facie contemptuous.
The court also rejected the authorities’ stand that the absence of regularization before Hussain’s death extinguished his claim.
It held that even an employee had an independent right of consideration for regularization, irrespective of whether a junior employee had been regularized or not.
The court specifically observed that
“The right of consideration for notional regularization continues to exists even after death of an employee for purposes of computing benefits devolved upon legal heirs/successors of deceased employee.”
Referring to the Division Bench judgment in State of U.P. and others vs. Kuldeep Thakur, 2017 (4) ADJ 94 (DB), the court noted that where an employee’s claim for regularization had crystallised and was pending consideration, his death could not defeat that right.
It also referred to the Full Bench decision in Pawan Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., (2010) 8 ADJ 664 (ALL), while distinguishing the situation where a deceased employee’s right to consideration for regularization had already accrued.
The court said that in the present case, the father’s claim had been under active consideration and had become stronger because employees junior to him were regularized.
The bench further observed that the case was a reminder that “the law, while clothed in formalities of procedure, must never lose sight of its humane purpose.”
It said neither the petitioner nor his mother had sought charity but justice and held that Hussain’s 18 years of service could not be permitted to go in vain because of the “caprice, whims and stubborn attitude” of the authorities.
The court accordingly held that the deceased employee “shall be deemed to have been regularized from the date on which he became eligible for such benefit” and directed that all consequential monetary and other entitlements be extended to his legal heirs.
It also recognised the petitioner’s right to consideration for compassionate appointment and directed the competent authority to consider his claim under the 1974 Rules.
If the second respondent lacked competence because of the delay, the matter was to be forwarded to the State Government under Rule 5(iii) read with Rule 10 of the Rules, 1974. The entire exercise was ordered to be completed within two months.
Taking note of the repeated litigation and the authorities’ failure to comply with earlier judicial directions, the court also awarded costs of Rs 50,000 in favour of the petitioner.
It allowed the writ petition and directed communication of the order to the Secretary, Rural Engineering Department, and the Director and Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Uttar Pradesh.
Case: Hasan Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Rural Engineering Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 others
Case No: WRIT A No. – 4739 of 2024
Date of Order: 06.08.2026
Status: Allowed
