RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been discontinued as a daily wager in the Forest Department and simultaneously an order has been passed on 15th March 2005 refusing the benefit of regularization to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner's claim does not fall within the provisions of THE Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group D Posts Rules 2001.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order proceeds on erroneous assumption of facts and law inasmuch as the petitioner was working as a daily wager since 1990 prior to the cut off date of 29th June 1991 and was also working on the date of the 2001 Rules which were enforced on 21st December 2001. He submits that in view of the provisions of the aforesaid rules particularly Rule 4(1)(a), the petitioner is entitled for regularization and the facts in support of such a claim have been completely ignored as such the impugned order is vitiated.

(3.) THE petitioner has come out with a clear case that he was working since 1990 and the petitioner relies on a certification by the Forest Range Officer dated 1st June 1994 Annexure-1 to the writ petition. THE said certificate recites that the petitioner continuously worked on daily wages from September 1990 to May 1994. THE aforesaid annexure has been narrated in Paragraph 5 of the writ petition. THE respondents have given their reply in paragraph 8 to the same which is quoted herein below. "Para 8. That, the contends of para No. 5 of the writ petition are not correct as they are stated. THE petitioner had never been paid salary by the department but he has been given wages as admissible to the daily wager. THE service of the daily wager start from morning and came to an end in evening automatically. Certificate which has been annexed by the petitioner as annexure-1 to the writ petition is no relevancy with the regularization of the petitioner on group 'D' post."