SURENDRA BAHADUR Vs. SUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being decided.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated 31.1.1990 by which his services were terminate. Petitioner's case is that he was working as collection peon from 26.7.1983 to 30.9.1985 during different periods. Petitioner further states that he was appoint on temporary basis on 26.8.1986 and worked up to 30.9.1986. The appointment letter has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The aforesaid appointment letter was temporary. Petitioner in paragraph 6 of the writ petition has stated that he continued in service even after 30.9.1986 and another Order dated 26.12.1986 was passed by respondent No. 1 for continuing in service said order has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner's case is that he has been continued thereafter till his appointment was terminated on 31.1.1990. Petitioner states that he has become entitled to be regularised in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Regularisation of ad hoc appointment (on posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979. Petitioner states that he was appointed before 1.10.1986 and has been continuing in service when the U.P. Regularisation of ad hoc appointment (on posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) (2nd Amendment) Rules, 1989 was passed i.e. on 7.8.1989. By virtue of the aforesaid 1989 Rules the petitioner is entitled to be considered for regularisation since he has been appointed prior to the cut of date 1.10.1986. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents has stated that his service was not continuous from 30.9.1986 to 27.12.1986. Although the petitioner has stated in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that he is continuing in service from 30.9.1986 and has also filed an order dated 26.12.1986 as Annexure-2 to the writ petition which is passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It shows that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and even accepting that there was no break except the break which is being less than three months which ought to have been ignored for considering the case of the petitioner for regularisation. The apex Court in the case of Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, 1990 (60) FLR 157 (SC), has laid down that while considering the claim of regularisation the break of less than three months have to be ignored. In view of the above the petitioner is entitled to regularisation under the said rules and his services could not be terminated without considering him for regularisation. The order dated 31.1.1990 terminating the services of the petitioner is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Petition Allowed.