DEVENDRA KUMAR GAUR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the order of the respondent No. 2 dated 6.9.1990, whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to regularize the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner and treat him as a regular employee of the Rural Engineering Service Department.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of this case are that the petitioner was appointed as a junior clerk on ad hoc basis by letter dated 31.7.1987 issued by the respondent No. 2, Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Agra Circle, Agra. It was categorically specified in the said appointment letter that the appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary and could be terminated without any notice ; and also that the petitioner Devendra Kumar Gaur shall not be entitled to any claim for appointment on regular basis. On the basis of the said appointment letter, the petitioner continued to work as a junior clerk and thereafter on 6.9.1990, the respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order under the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, terminating the ad hoc/temporary services of the petitioner as Junior Clerk. One month's notice was thus, given stating that the services of the petitioner were no longer required and that on the completion of one month's period his services would come to an end.

(3.) I have heard Sri R. B. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record. Sri Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has challenged the said order of termination mainly on the ground that the petitioner was entitled to regularization as he had already worked for more than three years ; and for more than two years since the date of the coming into force of the U.P. Regularization of Ad Hoc appointments (On Posts Within the Purview of Public Service Commission) (Second Amendment) Rules, 1989. According to the aforesaid rules, which came into force on 7.8.1989, it was provided that persons appointed on ad hoc basis on or before 1.10.1986, and continuing in service as such on the date of the commencement of the said rules (i.e., 7.8.1989), shall be regularized. Admittedly the petitioner was not in service on 1.10.1986 and had been appointed as a junior clerk on ad hoc / temporary basis only on 31.7.1987. Sri Singhal has submitted that the cut off date i.e., 1.10.1986, is wholly arbitrary and imaginary and has been artificially fixed without there being any valid basis for the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that on the strength of the interim order granted by this Court in this writ petition, the petitioner had continued in service till 3.5.1998, on which date he expired. It has thus, been contended that in any case, the petitioner having served for nearly eleven years continuously, he would be entitled to regularization of service and all other consequential benefits under the law.