ANIL KUMAR YADAV Vs. NAGAR PALIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was heard and dismissed by me on 16.7,2002 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the relief that the order dated 23rd August, 1990, passed by the respondent No. 2, Executive Officer. Nagar Pallka, Azamgarh be quashed with a further prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to treat the petitioner in regular service with all benefits ; and that the petitioner be paid regular pay scale as is being paid to other regularly appointed employees.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that he was appointed in the Octroi Department on daily wages and has worked with effect from 1.10.1989 to 31.7.1990 with artificial breaks. The petitioner has neither annexed any order of appointment nor it has been stated that the petitioner has worked for how many days. The impugned order dated 23rd August, 1990, is the order passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Azamgarh, whereby it has been stated that because of the fact of the abolition of the Octroi Department, all such employees who were working on Tahbazari/Licence Department on daily wages, their services were terminated and in their place, regular employees working in the Octroi Department were absorbed. The petitioner's contention is that this has been done in pursuance to the resolution of the Nagar Palika, Azamgarh, but no such resolution has been annexed. The petitioner who, admittedly, is a dally wager employee, in my opinion, has failed to make out any case either for regularisation or for quashing of the order dated 23rd August, 1990.