JAGAT MNARAIN VERMA S/O. LATE MEWA LAL AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRICIPAL SECY. MEDECIAL AND HEALTH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of three persons claiming regularization on the post of Tubewell Operators. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioner No. 1, has already retired from the service, whereas the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, are still in service and they can be regularized. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the State Government has promulgated the U.P. Irrigation Department Regularization of Part -time Tube -well Operators on the post of Tube -well Operators Rules, 1996, which have been amended by the subsequent amendment in the year 2008 i.e. the Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department Regularization of Part -time Tube -well Operators on the post of Tube -well Operators (First Amendment) Rules, 2008. The cut off date was initially 1.10.1986 and after amendment it was extended to 30.6.1998. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the services of the Petitioners were terminated by order dated 3.12.1986, which was challenged in the Writ Petition No. 1550 (S/S) of 1987, the said writ petition was allowed by order dated 11.8.1999, in terms of the judgment and order dated 1.1.1990, passed in Ajay Kr. Srivastava v. Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Khand, Sitapur and Ors. Writ Petition No. 2246 of 1986

(2.) IT is informed to the Court that during the pendency of the said writ petition, there was an interim order dated 1.7.1987, in favour of the Petitioners, however, the Petitioners were allowed to resume their work on 13.7.2000. The learned Standing Counsel submits that at the time of commencement of the said rules, the Petitioners were not in service and they were allowed to work only from 13.7.2000 and, therefore, they are not entitled to be considered for regularization under the aforesaid rules.

(3.) IT is the admitted position that against the termination order the Petitioners had filed a writ petition, which was allowed by order dated 11.8.1999, with the observation that the Petitioners shall be entitled to be given the benefit of the judgment and order dated 1.1.1990, passed in the Writ Petition No. 2246 of 1986. In the said judgment it was provided that the Petitioners shall be retained in service and paid salary accordingly and other consequences will follow. There was also an interim order dated 1.7.1987, operating in favour of the Petitioners. Therefore, it is totally wrong on the part of the opposite parties not to give the benefit of continuity in service to the Petitioners for the purpose of considering them for regularization in the service. The Petitioners are fully eligible and entitled to be considered for regularization under the aforesaid rules.