SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court.- The writ petition is directed against the order dated 3rd June, 1949 passed by the Secretary, Environment Department, Lucknow, by means of which the petitioner was to remain in the service of the U. P. Pollution Control Board on contract till 3rd June, 1989 in pursuance of the judgment of this Court dated 17-5-1989 in Writ Petition No. 2070 of 1988, Surendra Singh v. State of U. P. The petitioner prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to regularise his services with all benefits and privileges. It was further prayed that the order dated 3-6-1989 contained in Annexure No. 1 be quashed.

(2.) THE petitioner, who was earlier in the employment of the U. P. Development System Corporation, Lucknow as Member-Manager, Consultancy (Project, Planning and Project Management) applied for the post of Member- Secretary, U. P. Pollution Control Board on which he was duly selected and thereafter the State Government vide order dated 4-12-1984 appointed him for a period of six months temporally with the stipulation that the said services shall come to an end on regularisation, or selection of any person to the post or even prior to that, on giving one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof. THE appointment was made, in exercise of powers under Section 5 of Sub-section (2) (F) of the Air (Prevention Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Before expiry of the said period of six months, the term of the petitioner was extended in exercise of the powers vested in the Government in continuance of his previous appointment for a period of one year on contract. It was further provided that on his giving consent to appointment on contract, the Government would settle the terms and conditions of contract. THE petitioner, it appears, never gave his consent in writing nor was he asked to do so. After his initial appointment for six months, the petitioner moved an application about four months thereafter and again after some five months he again moved an application for regularisation followed by yet another application after the expiry of one year of his continuous appointment. After expiry of this one year period, which came to an end on 2nd June, 1986 the petitioner continued to work and some three months thereafter vide order dated 2th August, 1986, purporting it to be in continuation of previous appointment, the said appointment on contract was extended for three years with retrespsctive effect, viz. with effect from 4th June, 1986. It was provided that during this period he would be governed by Government Servant Rules and all the Government Orders and after his consent for the said appointment, the terms of contract would be settled. It appears that on the petitioner's application for regularisation dated 29-3-1985 a note was put before the Secretary, Environment Department. Even before it, it appears, in January 1985 before expiry of initial appointment of six months, the file was in movement and the matter was also referred to the Chief Minister and it was decided to appoint him on contract for one year. After the expiry of period of one year, the file was again in movement and in the month of August, 1986 and the Chief Minister vide order dated 27-8-1986 directed for extension of his appointment on contract for three years with the provision that after getting consent of this contractual appointment, terms of the contract will be decided by the State Government. Till then there was a Single State Board under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the order dated 29-8-1986 referred to above, was also sent to the Chairman of the U. P. Development System Corporation, Lucknow and also to the Managing Director, U. P. Development System Corporation, Lucknow.

(3.) SOME two and a half months thereafter without disposing of the petitioner's application for regularisation for which hopes were given to him even in the initial appointment letter, the State Government vide its letter dated 3rd June, 1986 appointed him for a period of three years on one stretch treating it to be an appointment with retrospective effect, i.e. from the date when his previous appointment come to an end and thereby including the period when the petitioner's appointment was not for any particular term. The unilateral appointment for a further period of three years, though not in continuation of previous one yet including the period during which the petitioner's services were continuing without break and without any period fixed for the same. The continuity in the appointment of petitioner after expiry of period of one year not being irregular, there was no question of its regularisation. If the same period is ignored and appointment for three years in not to be taken with retrospective effect, the period of three years then would come to end in August, 1989 and the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated or put to an end to on 3rd June, 1989 on the ground that three years' period> has come to an end on that date. But no specific plea in this behalf has been taken in the instant writ petition and no relief has been claimed, and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to claim relief on this score.