AKHIL TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 28.3.2003 passed by the Deputy Director (Construction), Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow as contained in Annexure No. 11 to this writ petition and also for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as Junior Engineer w.e.f. 1.3.1996 on muster-roll basis in Mandi Parishad. His services were terminated on 30.11.1997. According to the petitioner, his services were terminated under the orders of the State Government dated 12.2.1999. Several other employees were also terminated on the basis of that order so several writ petitions were filed in which the Government Order dated 12.2.1999 was challenged and this Court in Writ Petition No. 1346 (SS) of 1999 and other connected matter, quashed the Government Order dated 12.2.1999. The petitioner alongwith other employees of Mandi Parishad also filed a Writ Petition No. 5281 (SS) of 2000 seeking the benefit of the judgment dated 11.8.2000 in Writ Petition No. 1346 (SS) of 1999. This writ petition was disposed of with the direction to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the directions issued in the judgment dated 11.8.2000, The services of Chandra Shekhar Pant, Ram Saran, Shiv Shanker, Adarsh Kumar Singh who worked on muster-roll alongwith the petitioner in 'Apna Bazar Project' were also terminated in December, 1997. Chandra Shekhar Pant filed Writ Petition No. 441(SS) of 1999 seeking the benefit of the judgment dated 11.8.2000 in Writ Petition No. 1346 (SS) of 1999. This writ petition was allowed on 15.9.2000 on the ground that he should be provided the job if the persons junior to the petitioner were already working. Shri Chandra Shekhar Pant was reinstated on 6.2.2001. Shri Ram Saran, Shiv Sanker and Adarsh Kumar Singh who were working in Apna Bazar Project and whose services were also terminated also filed writ petition and they have been taken back in service. It is also alleged that Rang Nath Dwivedi, Triveni Singh Deo Kumar Singh and Parasu Ram Singh whose services were terminated in the year 1997, have been taken back in service in pursuance of the order dated 15.9.2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 5281 (SS) of 2000. The petitioner was denied the reinstatement vide order dated 23.1.2001 (Annexure No. 4). He moved a representation to the Director (Annexure No. 5). No action was taken by the Director, therefore, the petitioner filed Second Writ Petition No. 5899 (SS) of 2001 and alleged discrimination with other similarly circumstanced employees. This writ petition was also disposed of vide judgment dated 29.11.2002 (Annexure No. 6) with a direction to decide the representation pending before the Director, Mandi Parishad. The petitioner moved an application dated 3.12.2002 for compliance of the judgment and sent several reminders. When no action was taken, he filed a contempt petition. It is after the contempt notice, the Dy. Director Construction, Mandi Parishad passed the order dated 28.2.2003 and the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement in the service was rejected. The copy of the order of the Deputy Director is Annexure No. 11, which is impugned in this writ petition. It is also alleged that in the case of Km. Parmila Verma, the representation was dismissed on the same ground that the S.L.P. is pending before the Supreme Court. Kumari Pramila Verma filed a writ petition and her writ petition has been allowed vide judgment dated 23.5.2003 in W.P. No. 4538 (SS) of 2001 (Annexure No. 13). The petitioner made a fresh representation after the judgment in the case of Pramila Verma, which is Annexure No. 14. When no action was taken on the last representation after the decision of Pramila Verma, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.C. Mehrotra, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.