RAM NARESH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Pankaj Srivastava for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. Since pleadings are complete, as requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties, I have proceeded to hear and decide it, under the Rules of the Court, at this stage.

(2.) THOUGH there are several reliefs sought in this writ petition but in effect, petitioner's claim is three fold: (i) regularisation on a group 'D' post in Forest Department (ii) payment of salary at minimum of regular pay scale so long he is not regularised as per the decision in State of U.P. Vs. Putti Lal (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1595 and (iii) not to be terminated orally or otherwise.

(3.) THE facts in brief as per petitioner's version in the writ petition, are, that the petitioner was engaged as a Group 'D' employee in February, 1989 and continuing till the date of filing of the writ petition. He claims to be eligible for regularisation as per directions of Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Putti Lal (Supra) and also in view of statutory provisions contained in the Rules, 2001. The State Government took a policy decision to implement judgment in State of U.P. Vs. Putti Lal (Supra), as communicated by Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P., Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the "PCCF") vide letter dated 07.09.2002, to all Chief Conservators of Forest, U.P., Conservators of Forest/Regional Director and Divisional Forest Officers, U.P., directing to follow and comply Court's decision in State of U.P. Vs. Putti Lal (Supra). The Divisional Forest Officers of concerned areas, who are appointing authorities, however, proceeded illegally by making rampant, arbitrary and whimsical regularisations, without caring for length of engagement of individual daily wage employees and without preparing any seniority list vis -a -vis the vacancies available. A complaint was made to State Government that available vacancies for regularisation have been diverted elsewhere, so as to deprive daily wage employees of the benefit of regularisation. In this regard, detailed information was sought by State Government vide order dated 20.05.2002 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) from all the Divisional Forest Officers/Divisional Directors. It drew attention of this Court also when an Hon'ble Single Judge, dealing Contempt Petition No.1632 of2009 (Laxmi Chandra Vs. N.K. Janu), vide orders dated 03.12.2009, 26.02.2010 and 28.08.2010, sought detailed information from PCCF. The proceedings could not continue since in the meantime, some of the officers concerned went in appeal before Apex Court in Special Leave Petition No. 26664 -26665 of 2010 (Chanchal Kumar Tiwari and others vs. Narayan Singh) and the Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 16.09.2010, stayed contempt proceedings. Similar stay order in all contempt proceedings was passed in SLP NO. 26571 -26572 of 2010 on 27.09.2010.