SHIV SHANKAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforementioned two writ petitions have been filed by a daily wage worker engaged as Class-IV employee (Mali) in the Social Forestry Department, Siddharth Nagar. The orders dated 04.06.2019 and 04.08.2020 passed by the Divisional Director, Social Forestry Department, District- Siddharth Nagar are subject matter of challenge, separately in the above writ petitions.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially engaged in the year 1995 as a Class-IV employee in different units of Khesaraha Range of the Forest Department in District Siddharth Nagar. Since his initial engagement, the petitioner had been continuously working as daily wager without any complaint. For some period in the interregnum he had not been engaged but the said period has to be treated as artificial break, inasmuch as, the petitioner had continuously been engaged for the need/requirement of the department from 1995 till the date of termination of his services by the impugned order dated 04.08.2020 and had been discharging the duties of Mali in the Social Forestry Department on daily wage basis.

(3.) When the claim of the petitioner for regularisation under the prevalent rules in the Department was not considered, he filed writ petition(A) No.51403 of 2017 (Shiv Shankar vs. State of U.P. and ors.) wherein by the order dated 18.02.2019 direction was issued to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation and payment of minimum wages. Pursuant thereto, the claim of the petitioner for regularisation was considered and rejected vide impugned order dated 04.06.2019 on the ground that the petitioner's services were discontinued for two long years during the entire period of his working and the same cannot be ignored as artificial break. The petitioner was, thus, held ineligible for regularisation under the Regularisation Rules, 2016. With regard to the claim of minimum wages, it was held that the petitioner having not been appointed against a sanctioned post and no appointment letter having been issued to him, he was not entitled for grant of minimum wages.