SUSHIL CHANDRA DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. K. Yog, J. Heard Shri A. S. Diwakar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Shri J. C. Misra, learned standing Counsel on behalf of all the Respondents.

(2.) THIS petition is being finally heard and decided on merits at admission stage as contemplated under Rules of the Court.

(3.) A perusal of the said judgment of the Court clearly inheres in it that concerned authorities should have prepared a scheme and regularise the Petitioner and in case petitioner was not found fit/eligible, it was open to the concerned authorities to treat the Petitioner as work-charge/temporary employee. If the concerned authority did not choose to frame relevant scheme and ignored to consider the petitioner's suitability and eligibility for being considered for regularisation, and on the other hand the petitioner under said judgment of the Court received salary as regular employee in the Department then it clearly implies that petitioner was conferred benefit of a regular employee. The concerned authorities/respondents cannot take advantage of their own laches/negligence. An employee having worked for about two decades cannot be said to be temporary or work-charge. Such an employee had acquired all incidence of a permanent employee. It is now well settled and has been held in catena of decisions of this Court as well as of Apex Court. Keeping in mind the above proposition of law and judgment and order dated 30th October, 1996, referred to above, I find force in the contention of the Petitioner. Lac does not dispute the facts as are borne out from the judgment dated 30th October, 1996 Annexure-VII.