AVDHESH PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has inter alia prayed for following reliefs : (a) A writ of mandamus, commanding the opposite parties to allow him to work on the post of Typist on daily labour basis uninterruptedly to earn his wages on the basis of duties performed ; (b) Mandamus, commanding opposite parties to allow him wages equal to that as has been allowed to Typist/Junior Clerk employees of the State Government from the date the petitioner is working on the post to the date the petitioner is regularly absorbed against, the post of Typist/Junior Clerk in the regular establishment of the Irrigation Department. (c) A writ of mandamus, commanding opposite parties to pay bonus to the petitioner for the years 1984-85. 1985-86 and 1986-87 as per Government Order. (d) A writ of mandamus, commanding opposite parties to regularise his services by appointing him on the post of Typist/Junior Clerk against the vacant post or the posts likely to fall vacant giving him preference on the basis of length of service.

(2.) The facts averred in the writ petition may be noted in short; The petitioner's academic qualifications are B.Com. which degree he obtained in the year 1984. Earlier thereto he had passed Intermediate examination in the year 1981 and has obtained proficiency in typewriting both Hindi and English. The averment is that he was initially appointed with effect from August 1, 1981, on daily labour basis on muster roll as a Typist in the Sharda Sahayak Khand Haiderganj, Barabanki under opposite party No. 4. He while working as a Typist on Daily Labour Basis on muster roll from August, 1981 to October 1981, he was paid at the rate of Rs. 8/ - per day, thereafter from November, 1981 to November 1982, at the rate of Rs. 10/- per day and from December, 1982 to June, 1983 @ Rs. 13/-per day.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that he had been given enhanced labour wages as admissible from time to time and lastly he was being paid at the rate of Rs. 22/- per day. In August, 1987 his attendance was not being marked on the muster roll and the opposite party No. 4 then directed not to take work from the petitioner as he has not accorded sanction for the petitioner's continued employment on the muster roll on daily basis. The writ petition came up for orders on September 1, 1987 and an interim order was passed to the effect that the services of the petitioner shall not be terminated till further orders. The learned Standing Counsel was given time to obtain instructions but he failed to obtain instructions. By an order dated October 9, 1987 the writ petition was admitted and the interim order dated September 1, 1987, was directed to continue.