STATE OF U P Vs. DESHRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants Sri Vivek Shukla and Sri Mohd. Ali, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondent.

(2.) The delay in filing the instant Special Appeal, is hereby condoned.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge has fell into an error in issuing a direction to consider the case of the respondent for regularization in accordance with U.P. Regularization of Daily wages Appointments on Group 'D' post, Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2001), though he did not fall within the eligibility conditions. Submission is that on the date of enforcement of the Rules, 2001 i.e. on 21st December, 2001 the respondent was not working. The respondent's contention is that the aforesaid statement of fact made by the State, in the impugned order as well as before the Court is not correct and as matter of fact, the respondent had been working throughout right from March, 1988 to May, 2002 with some breaks. His submission is that right from July, 1997 to December, 2002 he has continuously been working and therefore, to say that he was not working on the date of enforcement of Rules, 2001 is not correct.