RAM SAJEEWAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) Inspite of time being granted, no counter affidavit has been filed.

(3.) The claim of the petitioner for regularization of his service has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was in continuous service from 16th April, 1992 onwards and prior to that there had been a break in service. Regularization has been claimed under the U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001. Rule 4 of the Rules of 2001 provides the procedure for regularization of service, which is extracted hereunder:-