ARVIND KUMAR MAURYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sudhakar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S. S. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the State.

(2.) In this writ petition the petitioner has sought the direction, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till regular appointment takes place and to make the payment of entire salary and a further prayer has been made directing the respondent/Settlement Officer Consolidation, Mau to decide the representation. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wager in the consolidation department in the year 1994 and his services were disengaged on 12.9.1995 and the petitioner filed the Writ Petition No. 2658 of 1996, Arvind Kumar Maurya v. State of U. P. and Ors. This Court, while disposing of the above writ petition on 23.1.1996 has been pleased to dispose of the writ petition by directing that in case the Settlement Officer, Consolidation shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and shall dispose of his representation keeping in view of the past performance of the petitioner. It is thereafter the present writ petition was filed and this Court by ex parte interim order dated 11.9.1996 has been pleased to pass an order which reads as below :

(3.) It appears thereafter the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation by its order dated 14.10.1996 has considered the representation of the petitioner whereby the petitioner had sought salary from September, 1995 to January, 1996 and had prayed to treat him as a regular employee. By a reasoned order, the Assistant Settlement Officer, department of Consolidation by its order dated 14.10.1996 has rejected the representation by observing that the services of the petitioner was dispensed with as the petitioner has not worked as a draftsman. According to the respondent, the appointment of the petitioner was made on daily wager basis as a draftsman without any advertisement or following the procedure of selection and the. petitioner has no vested right or had any claim of draftsman in question.