Court dismisses plea for retrospective regularisation of ad hoc appointment, emphasizing vacancy-based seniority and adherence to procedural rules under U.P. Regularisation Rules, 1979 (as amended)
In a significant judgment delivered on September 2, 2026, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Anish Kumar Gupta, clarified the scope and effect of regularisation under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (on Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (as amended). The court dismissed the petition filed by Dharmendra Kumar Vishwakarma seeking retrospective regularisation from the date of his initial ad hoc appointment in 1992 or from the date of eligibility as per the Third Amendment Rules, 2001.
Dharmendra Kumar Vishwakarma, appointed as Munshi on an ad hoc basis on March 28, 1992, continued in service under temporary status until he was regularised by an order dated April 28, 2016. The petitioner contended that his regularisation should have been backdated to either his initial appointment date or at least from December 20, 2001-the date when the Third Amendment to the 1979 Rules came into effect, making him eligible under Rule 4.
The petitioner's counsel relied on several Supreme Court judgments to argue for retrospective regularisation, claiming eligibility under the Third Amendment Rules due to his continuous service and requisite qualifications. However, the court observed that the 1979 Rules, as amended, explicitly provide for regularisation subject to availability of vacancies and seniority, with appointments to be made in order of seniority from an eligibility list prepared by a Selection Committee.
The court highlighted key provisions of the Rules, notably:
- Rule 4 mandates constitution of a Selection Committee to prepare an eligibility list arranged by seniority based on the date of appointment order.
- Rule 5 requires appointments to be made sequentially from this list as vacancies arise.
- Rule 7 stipulates that seniority for persons regularised under these rules is counted only from the date of the order of regularisation, not from the date of initial appointment or eligibility.
The judgment emphasized that the scheme does not permit automatic or retrospective regularisation merely because an individual fulfills eligibility criteria. The court rejected the petitioner's claim of negative parity, which was based on another employee's regularisation from an earlier date, stating such exceptions cannot override the statutory scheme.
Citing the recent Supreme Court decision in Uday Pratap Thakur v. State of Bihar (2023), the court underscored the fundamental difference between regular appointments made following due process and ad hoc or temporary appointments made without adherence to recruitment rules. The services rendered by ad hoc appointees cannot be equated with regular service for purposes such as seniority or pension benefits.
Ultimately, the Allahabad High Court held that the petitioner was rightly regularised with effect from April 28, 2016-the date of the regularisation order. The claim for backdating regularisation was found unsustainable in law and dismissed.
This judgment serves as a crucial precedent for the interpretation of the U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments Rules, affirming the principle that regularisation is a prospective benefit contingent on vacancy availability and seniority, and cannot be granted retrospectively.
Bottom Line:
Regularisation under U.P. Regularization of Ad Hoc Appointments Rules, 1979 (as amended) - Regularization can only be granted from the date of the order of regularization, not from the date of initial appointment or eligibility.
Statutory provision(s):
U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (on Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (as amended, including Third Amendment Rules, 2001)
Dharmendra Kumar Vishwakarma v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972322
