DINESH KUMAR ARYA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Abhishek Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.

(2.) The facts of the present case are that the appellant-petitioner had filed W.P. No. 6789 (S/S) of 2005, praying for quashing the order dated 6.10.2005 with a direction to the Respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner-appellant on class-IV post of Liftman or on any other equivalent post and pay him salary/wages. By an interim order dated 5.12.2005, the termination order was stayed by this Court and in compliance of the same, the appellant-petitioner was allowed to work and was paid wages.

(3.) The appellant, in fact, was engaged as Liftman on daily wage basis in Balrampur Hospital, Lucknow on 1.9.1989. Since then the appellant was continuing in service with the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. However, on 1.1.1994, his services were abruptly terminated by an oral order. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 976 (S/S) of 1994, in which by an interim order dated 23.2.1994, the opposite parties were restrained from delineating the appellant-petitioner from employment until further orders. It was also provided that the appellant-petitioner shall be allowed to work and shall be paid his salary regularly. After coming into force the U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments (on Group-D posts), Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 2001'), the appellant-petitioner had moved a representation to the opposite parties for regularization of his services. By order dated 7.7.2005, the W.P. No. 976 (S/S) of 1994, was disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties to consider the case of the appellant-petitioner for regularization in accordance with Rules 2001. In compliance thereof, by order dated 6.10.2005, the representation of the appellant-petitioner was rejected on the ground that the appellant-petitioner was not appointed directly on daily wage basis and his appointment was on stopgap arrangement and as such he was not entitled for the benefit of Rules 2001.