SHYAM MANOHAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Pursuant to the direction of the Writ Court, the District Magistrate has again passed the impugned order dated 31st March, 2009 rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that for the years 2006-09, the petitioner has made a recovery of less than 70% and therefore, he has not entitled to be regularised under Rule 5(1) of the Rules. The petitioner, being aggrieved, by the aforesaid order, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) From the aforesaid, it is clear that this is the fourth round of litigation and that the petitioner's claim is being rejected for one reason or the other, basically on the ground that he has made a recovery of less than 70%. The Court fails to understand as to how the recovery of the years 2006-2009 is now being taken into consideration. The petitioner had made a claim for regularization of the services as far back in the early 1990s which claim was rejected. The Writ Court allowed the petition and remanded the matter back. Consequently, the claim of the petitioner for regularization was required to be considered in respect of the earlier faslis and the present years was not required to be considered.