JAI PRAKASH CHAURASIYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY an order dated 23 -11 -1990, the petitioner was appointed as a clerk -cum -typist on a daily wage basis by the respondent No. 2. The services of the petitioner on daily wages basis was extended from time to time and by an order dated 1 -8 -1991, the services of the petitioner was extended till further orders. It transpires that the petitioner was threatened that his service would be dispensed with and, therefore, he filed a writ petition No. 30672 of 1991 praying that the petitioner be treated as a quasi employee in the service of the respondents. An interim order dated 4 -2 -1992 was passed by this Court directing that the employment of the petitioner would continue on daily wages till a regular selection was made by the respondents. On the basis of this interim order, the petitioner continued in service till 7 -6 -2001.

(2.) ON 4 -7 -1998 the State Government promulgated U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wage Appointments on Group C Post (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998(hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1998) for regularisation of daily rated workers, who were outside the purview of the commission. These Rules indicated that those daily rated workers, who were working on 29 -6 -1991 and worked continuously till 9 -7 -1998, i.e., the date of issuance of the Rules their cases would be considered for regularisation.

(3.) BASED on the aforesaid two directions of this Court, the petitioner again filed a fresh representation before the authority concerned, which was rejected again by the impugned order dated 7 -6 -2001 wherein not only the petitioner's representation for regularisation of his service has been rejected, his services on ad hoc basis was also dispensed with.