ANAND PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Pt. S. Chandra, Learned Counsel for petitioner as well as Mr. Ajay Shukla, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 3rd of April, 2008 whereby the claim of petitioner for regularization has been rejected on the ground that no appointment letter was issued to the petitioner, petitioner has not completed 240 days in a calendar year during the period 1991 to 1998 as such he does not come within the purview of Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment of Group C Posts (Outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') and sanctioned post of typist is not available in the department.

(2.) Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages on 1.6.1989 and since then he has been working. However, in the year 1992, service of petitioner was orally terminated w.e.f. 1.1.1992 against which the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 129 (S/S) of 1992, wherein by interim order dated 8.1.1992, the oral termination of petitioner was stayed and in compliance of the same, petitioner was reinstated into service w.e.f. 13.1.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner has been working continuously as Typist cum-Clerk in the office of opposite party No. 5 and he is still working on the said post on daily wages till today.

(3.) It is informed by Learned Counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is getting minimum of regular pay-scale in compliance of Court's order 6.10.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 129 (S/S) of 1992. After the post of Typist-cum-Clerk got vacant, name of the petitioner was recommended by letter dated 7.7.2003 by opposite party No. 5 for regularization, however, he was not considered. It was in compliance of the Count's order dated 6.10.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 129 (S/S) of 1992 that the case of petitioner for regularization was considered, however, by the impugned order 3.4.2008 in most arbitrary and illegal manner, regularization has been refused to the petitioner.