RAMESH SINGH PANWAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.8.2001 as contained in Annexure-1 issued by the opposite party No. 5 Deputy Director of Construction, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Meerut and for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to work and also pay him salary up-to-date along with arrears with effect from 25.6.2001. It is further prayed that mandamus be issued to the petitioner to regularise the service as per the prevailing regularisation scheme framed by the opposite parties.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was a class IV employee in the service of the Mandi Parishad. His services were terminated by oral order with effect from 1.6.1999 on the basis of the Government Order dated 12.2.1999. The Government Order dated 12.2.1999 was quashed by this Hon'ble Court in bunch of petitions on 11.8.2000 in which leading writ petition was Writ Petition No. 1346/1999, Mukesh Kumar v. U. P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others. Government Order dated 12.2.1999 is Annexure-2 which is said to have been quashed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. The Writ Petition No. 7620 (S/S) of 2000 was filed by the petitioner challenging the oral termination order in bunch of the writ petitions along with the Writ Petition No. 1346 (S/S) of 1999. A copy of the judgment dated 11.5.2001 in Writ Petition No. 7620 (S/S) of 2000 is Annexure-3.

(3.) PETITIONER has also filed a copy of the scheme framed by the opposite parties for regularisation of the daily wagers and on the basis of this regularisation scheme, he claims his regularisation. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N. C. Mehrotra standing counsel for the opposite parties, I find that in the impugned order, it has been sated that the petitioner was appointed in a project against which the budget of 2% contingency for a fixed period from 1.11.1993 to 31.5.1999. He was a muster roll employee and he has not worked after 31.5.1999. The Deputy Director, Construction at the time of passing the impugned order, has referred a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme in State of U. P. and others v. Ajay Kumar, JT 1997 (3) SC 219. I do not find anything on record to substantiate the contentions of the petitioner that he was permitted to work after the judgment dated 11.5.2001 in Writ Petition No. 7620 (S/S) of 2000, Kaushlendra Sharma and another v. Director, Mandi Parishad and others, as contained in Annexure-3 in which the present petitioner was also one of the petitioners. There is nothing on record to establish the fact that petitioner has worked after 31.5.1999. There is nothing on record to show that the services of the petitioner were terminated on the basis of the Government Order dated 12.2.1999 Annexure-2 which is alleged to have been quashed by this Court, in Writ Petition No. 1346 of 1999, Mukesh Kumar v. U. P. Rajya Krishi Mandi Parishad. This fact is admitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as muster roll Class IV employee on 1.11.1993. According to the impugned order, the petitioner worked upto 31.5.1999 and there is nothing to rebut this fact stated in the impugned order. The impugned order was passed on 20.8.2001 and the writ petition has been filed after the period of two years four months. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. PETITIONER is not entitled to take the advantage of the judgment dated 11.8.2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 1346 (S/S) of 1999, Mukesh Kumar v. Mandi Parishad. At the time of deciding Writ Petition No. 7620 (S/S) of 2000, this Court has not recorded any finding by holding that the service of the petitioner were terminated on the basis of the Government Order dated 12.2.1999 Annexure-2. Only those employees whose services were terminated on the basis of the Government Order dated 12.2.1999, Annexure-2 can be considered for giving the advantage of the judgment by this Court dated 11.8.2000 in Writ Petition No. 1346 (S/S) of 1999. Since the case of the petitioner is different and his services were not terminated on the basis of the Government Order dated 12.2.1999, Annexure-2, he cannot claim the benefit of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1346 (S/S) of 1999. The matter of regularisation of the muster roll employees was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration, (1992) 4 SCC 99 and it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that muster roll employees have no right to continue and claim the regularisation after the period of project expires. The same view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya v. Bal Krishna Soni, (1997) 5 SCC 86.