Court holds employees of District Rural Development Agency, a society under Societies Registration Act, not entitled to regularisation under Uttar Pradesh government rules; petitions dismissed
In a significant verdict dated August 6, 2026, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Anish Kumar Gupta, dismissed the petition filed by Rajendra Kumar and 33 others seeking regularisation and absorption as permanent employees in the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) across various districts of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners, engaged since 1986 in posts such as Computer Programmer and Computer Operator, claimed entitlement to regularisation under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016.
The Court examined the nature of the petitioners' employment and the character of the DRDA as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, functioning under schemes of the Government of India. It was held that the said 2016 Rules explicitly exclude persons engaged in schemes or projects of the State or Central Government by societies such as DRDA. Consequently, the petitioners were not entitled to the benefits of regularisation under these Rules.
Further, the Court rejected the petitioners’ plea to quash earlier government orders dated February 3, 2009, and May 20, 2010, which had denied regularisation claims of similarly situated persons. The Court noted that the petitioners were not parties to the earlier cases or representations that led to those orders and thus lacked locus standi to challenge them.
The Court also addressed the petitioners’ reliance on government orders dated August 13, 2015, and December 9, 2021, reiterating that these orders apply only to government departments, autonomous bodies, public enterprises, corporations, local bodies, development authorities, and district panchayats. Since DRDA operates as a registered society under the Societies Registration Act and implements Central Government schemes, the petitioners could not claim benefits under these orders.
Highlighting the Supreme Court precedent in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006), the Court reaffirmed that regularisation is not a matter of right but depends on the nature of engagement and applicable rules. Considering the petitioners’ employment status and the inapplicability of the 2016 Rules, the Court found no merit in the claim for regularisation.
The petitioners who had either left employment or attained superannuation were dismissed from the case as their claims were either not pressed or had become infructuous. The remaining petitioners’ claims were dismissed on merits.
This ruling clarifies the legal position regarding the employment status of persons engaged by societies like DRDA under Government of India schemes and underscores that such employees do not qualify for regularisation under the Uttar Pradesh government’s 2016 Rules meant for government departments and similar bodies.
Bottom Line:
Employees engaged by a District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and operating under Government of India schemes, are not entitled to regularisation/absorption under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016.
Statutory provision(s): Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2016; Societies Registration Act; Government orders dated 13.08.2015 and 09.12.2021
Rajendra Kumar v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2956363
