GIRISH CHANDRA BHATT Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to work and discharge his duties on the post of Junior Engineer/Surveyor. Further mandamus has been sought treating the petitioner in service since 31 -5 -1991.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner passed three years Diploma in Civil Engineering from Government Polytechnic, Loha Ghat, with first Division, and joined the Public Works Department on 25 -7 -1985 as Surveyor engaged on daily wages. Though the petitioner was engaged as Surveyor he was assigned work of Junior Engineer and was paid Rs. 40/ - per day. From 25 -7 -1985 to 31 -5 -1995. Petitioner continuously worked for at least six years as aforesaid and he was also given an experience certificate by the Public Works Department for the work done by him from 30 -12 -1987 to 12 -11 -1990. Petitioner is fully qualified for being appointed as regular Junior Engineer and is entitled for regularization of his services. It is further alleged in the writ petition that Juniors to the petitioner are being regularized in the service while the petitioner's services were terminated without following the procedure of law. As such it is stated in the writ petition that the action on the part of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary being violative for Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On one hand the petitioner's services were terminated while on the other hand fresh candidates were engaged by the respondents, which is again discriminatory. It is also pleaded that the petitioner since had completed 240 days on continuous service in a year as such his retrenchment is violative of Section 6 N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1987. It is also submitted in the writ petition that the petitioner made representation to the concerned authority but to no avail. Referring the Writ Petitions No. 2605 (5/5) of 1991 Yogesh Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and another and Writ Petition No. 1400 of 1991 Virendra Kumar Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. and others filed before the Luck -now Bench of Allahabad High Court, the parity has been claimed for payment of minimum pay scale to the petitioner.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents a counter affidavit was filed before the Luc -know Bench of Allahabad High Court where the present writ petition was originally filed (transferred to this court under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act 2000) in which it Is admitted on behalf of the respondents nos. 1 to 4 that the petitioner did work from 26 -9 -1985 to 25 -5 -1991 on daily wages as Surveyor/Supervisor for which he has been paid his dues. However, it is denied that he worked continuously with the department. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is not entitled to regularization nor his services were terminated orally, rather the petitioner himself left the job with effect from 26 -5 -1991. It is only after the order dated 18 -6 -1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 1400 of 1991 Yogesh Srivastava Vs. State of U.P., that the petitioner has woken up and filed the writ petition to have benefit which the petitioners of the said case have received. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner's case is not similar to that of the petitioners of above referred writ petitions, as he himself left the job at his own will and did not continue with the department unlike others. For the same reason he is also not entitled to have benefit of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The representations made by the petitioner cannot be allowed as he has distorted the facts to get the benefit of the aforesaid judgements passed in 1996. It is categorically stated in the counters affidavit that the department never terminated services of the petitioner.