JAVED AKHTAR Vs. STATE PUBLIC SERVICE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the State respondents.

(2.) Challenge in this writ petition is essentially to an order dated 21.9.2007 (annexure 20 to the writ petition) passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow rejecting the claim petition filed by the petitioner for issuing appropriate orders/directions to the respondents for considering his claim for regular appointment/absorption as clerk in Collectorate, Agra against the vacant post of clerk and also a writ of mandamus commanding the State Government to grant suitable employment to the petitioner under the State Government.

(3.) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was employed from 1.8.1991 to 31.12.1992 and second term from 6.7.2000, which ended on 31.5.2001 by the census department under the Central Government. Once the census operation had come to an end the services of the petitioner were dispensed with and pursuant to the direction of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.21598 of 2001 the representation preferred by him was rejected on 27.6.2001 by the District Magistrate, Agra, which compelled the petitioner for filing Claim Petition No.938 of 2001, which was finally decided on 20.6.2002 by the Tribunal and accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the order of the District Magistrate, Agra dated 27.6.2001 and directed the respondents to consider the representation for absorption of the services of the petitioner afresh and in the light of law of absorption made in paragraph 7 of the judgment dated 20.6.2002 within a period of two months. Once again, the District Magistrate, Agra rejected the representation of the petitioner on 2.9.2002 holding that the petitioner cannot claim any right of absorption in view of the fact that they were engaged on contract basis for a specific period on a fixed remuneration of Rs.900/- per month and upon completion of the census operation his services have rightly been dispensed with, as he was appointed for a specific purposes and, therefore, he does not fall within the definition of 'retrenched employee' so as to absorb his services either under the provisions of the U.P. Retrenched Employees Recruitment Rules, 1967 (for short 1967 Rules) or U.P. Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporation in Government Service Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 1991 Rules). The petitioner, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate, Agra, filed Claim Petition No.466 of 2003 before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, which has been dismissed, hence the present writ petition.