SURESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. This writ petition has been filed by Sri Suresh Chandra and Sri Prem Chandra Verma petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 who were appointed as Clerk and muster roll clerk respectively in the U. P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. , Churk, Sonbhadra (for short 'corporation' ). The petitioners have sought the following reliefs in the petition: (i) for quashing the order dated 18-2-2005 passed by the Director, State Urban Development Agency, U. P. , Lucknow repatriating the petitioners to the Corporation on account of completion of five years period of deputation in the State Urban Development Agency; (ii) for a direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioners as Junior Clerk/typist at District Urban Development Agency and to make regular payment of monthly salary; (iii) writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to treat the petitioners as absorbed on the post of Junior Clerk/typist or to absorb the petitioners in alternative employment in Government service.

(2.) AN advertisement dated 14-4-1999 was issued by the Director, State Urban Development Agency, U. P. , Lucknow (for short 'suda') inviting applications for appointment on deputation. The petitioners applied and were selected. They were consequently relieved from the Corporation and joined SUDA on deputation.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the main prayer in the writ petition is the third prayer, which is based upon the fact that the petitioners were employees of the Corporation which has been wound up under a winding up order passed by this Court. As a consequence thereof the services of all the employees of U. P. State Cement Corporation, including the petitioners stood terminated on its closure. The COUNSEL further submits that the retrenched employees of the Corporation are entitled to absorption in alternate employment in any other Government establishment in the State under the Rules of 1991; and that each of the petitioners fulfils the conditions stipulated under the Rules of 1991 but have not been absorbed in any Government establishment under the respondents. It is also submitted that this Court with regard to other retrenched employees of the Corporation has issued directions for their absorption and some of such retrenched employees have already been absorbed. In support of the contentions, the petitioners' COUNSEL relied upon the judgment in Bageshwari Prasad Srivastava v. State of U. P. & Ors. , 1999 (3) AWC 1456 (All.), which has been affirmed by a Division Bench vide judgment dated 19-11-2001 in Special Appeal No. 540 of 1999 as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 18-3-2002 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5397 of 2002.