SAUDAN SINGH DECD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal has been filed by Saudan Singh and others against the judgment dated 11.9.1996 delivered in Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 29391 of 1996. Saudan Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellants who were petitioners in the writ petition, filed writ petition for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.8.1996 passed by Sri W. Rahman, Superintending Engineer Aligarh/ Mathura Circle Public Works Department, Aligarh and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners and to pay them regular salary with other consequential benefits which are admissible according to law.

(3.) The case taken by the petitioners in the writ petition is that they were appointed in Public Works Department as daily rated employees initially. They were appointed in the Construction Division II, Public Works Department under the subordination of Executive Engineer, Construction Division II, Public Works Department, Aligarh. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 were appointed as beldar in the month of December, 1983 and petitioner Nos. 6 to 8 were appointed as mate in the month of November, 1983. It is stated that no appointment letter was issued to the petitioners. It is alleged that they were working continuously from the date of their appointment, therefore, the Engineer-in-Chief wrote a letter dated 21.6.1980 to the Superintending Engineer for all the circles of Uttar Pradesh giving guidelines for daily rated employees of the department, who had completed three years of service to the effect that they would be entitled for monthly salary. The petitioner's contention is that the respondent No. 4 (Executive Engineer) has regularised the services of the petitioners in compliance of the letter dated 21.6.1980 since the petitioners had completed more than three years of service on 31.12.1987 and had worked for 240 days in every calendar year. The respondent No. 4 passed orders dated 30.1.1988. 11.1.1988 and 25.1.1988 for regularisation of the services of the petitioners. It is further stated that the petitioners got monthly salary till September, 1988, but thereafter, the respondent No. 4 passed reversion order against the petitioners without giving any opportunity of hearing to them reverting the petitioners as dally wagers. It is stated that the petitioners challenged this order in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 25140 of 1988, 22031 of 1989 and 36643 of 1994 and this Court quashed the reversion order and allowed the writ petitions and issued direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners and pay them regular salary. Petitioners have stated that when this direction was not followed by the respondents, they filed Contempt Petition No. 814 of 1996 against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the respondents were directed to appear in the Court. It is stated that the State of U. P. filed Special Appeal Nos. 515. 516 and 517 of 1996 which were heard by the Division Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble R. R.K. Trivedi. J, and the special appeals were dismissed.