PURSHOTTAM Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. Petitioner was appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin for the first time on 1.6.1976. He worked for 309 days from 1.3.1976 to 31.7.1979 at eight stretches. At the first stretch he worked from 1.3.1976 to 6.4.1976. Thereafter on next five stretches he worked continuously from 16.2.1978 to 31.7.1978. Thereafter he worked for 46 days from 1.3.1979 to 15.4.1979 and thereafter for 59 days from 4.7.1979 to 31.8.1979. After a gap of about eight years the petitioner was again appointed as Ad-Hoc Collection Amin on 11.2.1987. When the post was filled in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the same, District Magistrate, Allahabad removed the petitioner from service on 3.9.2003, i.e., after more than six years. Thereupon petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 39248 of 1993 in which an interim order was passed on 13.10.1993 directing that "Until further order of this Court petitioner will continue in service as collection amin and shall be paid salary." The order was complied with. The earlier writ petition was finally decided on 26.9.2007. Until then petitioner had worked under interim order. Through order dated 26.9.2007 writ petition was disposed of with the direction to Sub Divisional Officer to decide the petitioner's representation for regularization in view of the Constitutional Bench authority of Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006 4 JT 420.

(2.) Thereafter, representation of the petitioner was rejected on 14.5.2012 by Deputy Collector, Sirathu, district Kaushambi. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition. In the impugned order it has been mentioned that in the Constitutional Bench authority of Supreme Court it has been mentioned that those persons who were working on ad hoc basis for 10 or more than 10 years without the aid of interim order of High Court might be considered for regularization.

(3.) However, the observation of the Supreme Court was in respect of those employees for whose regularization no rules were made. In U.P. such rules have been framed by the name of the U.P. Regularization of Ad-Hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979. The validity of the said Rules has not been questioned by any one.