SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Sunil Kumar Sharma, claims regularisation on the basis of his work for the following periods (as per his date and event chart along with the writ petition) admittedly, having been engaged as daily, wager in the department of Registration Government of U. P. : Petitioner was appointed for the period from 11.4.1984 to 31.12.1984 (8-1/2 months) Gap 3 weeksPetitioner was appointed for the period from23.1,1985 to 31.1.1985 [10 days) Gap 9-1/2 monthsPetitioner was appointed for the period from16.4.1985 to 30.6.1985 (2-1/2 months) Gap 12 months Petitioner was appointed for the period from8.2.1986 to 3.5.1986 (2 months 27 days) The aforesaid statistics shows that petitioner had worked, in total for 15 months (ignoring short breaks, i.e. gap of less than 3 months).

(2.) The learned standing counsel, however, giving his own calculation about the work of the petitioner and according to it, the petitioner had worked for 511 days (i.e. less than two years). Petitioner does not dispute that he had not worked continuously for three years on or before October, 1986 for being eligible to be regularised under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules 1979, (called the Rules, 1979).

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that petitioner had not pleaded three years continuous service as required under relevant ad hoc rules prior to 1986.