RAKESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have filed the aforesaid batch of writ petitions assailing either the orders of their termination from service or disengagement or claiming regularization of service on different posts in the Mandi Parishad. According to the Petitioners' Counsel, Petitioners were engaged as Work charge/Muster Roll/on consolidated pay under the contingency limit in various construction divisions of the Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad.

(2.) It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that in Mandi Parishad there are three categories of employees, namely, (1) those appointed on regular basis against duly sanctioned posts in accordance with the service regulations in the establishment of the Mandi Parishad (2) persons engaged on daily wages, fixed pay, contract against sanctioned posts in the establishment of Mandi Parishad and (3) the third category, consists work charge, Muster Roll and fixed pay employees engaged within 2% contingency limit as per the policy/practice of the Board. Under the work charge and muster roll employees, there is another category comprising Diploma Holder Engineers, who were engaged for discharging the duties on the post of Junior Engineer(Civil)/E & M.

(3.) On 12.2.1999, the State Government issued a Government Order for terminating the service of employees, who were allegedly, appointed against various categories of posts during the period 1.4.1996 to 30.10.1997. Consequently, directions were issued by Mandi Parishad for terminating the services of the irregularly appointed employees including the contingency limit employees also, if they were in excess of 2% contingency limit calculated on the basis of the total project cost. According to the Petitioners, the said G.O. dated 12.2.1999 did not pertain to the contingency fund employees, even then their services were also terminated.