MANOJ KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner, Manoj Kumar Mishra, a retired Assistant Engineer (Civil), belonging to the U.P. Palika Centralised Service, seeking our mandamus, ordering the respondents to sanction and fix his pension and gratuity, taking into account his entire length of service from 7/3/1995 to 30/6/2024, that is to say, including the period during which he worked ad hoc. The petitioner has further prayed that he be paid his monthly pension regularly, together with arrears, and, further, that gratuity be also determined and paid to him.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as a Junior Engineer (Civil) on daily-wages w.e.f. 29/5/1985 with the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mainpuri. He has remained in employment continuously eversince. In the year 1995, proceedings were taken by the State Government to grant appointment as Junior Engineers (Civil) under Rule 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralised) Services Rules, 1966 (for short, 'the Rules of 1966') to persons working on daily-wage/ contract/ ad hoc basis in the various Nagar Nigam/ Nagar Palika Parishad. In the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner's name was also included for consideration. On 7/3/1995, an order was issued by the State Government, whereby 58 persons were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) under Rule 31 of the Rules of 1966. The petitioner's name figures at serial No. 53 of the said list. In terms of the order dtd. 7/3/1995, the petitioner submitted his joining report to the Director, Local Bodies, U.P., Lucknow. He was posted at Nagar Palika Parishad, Mahoba, where he joined and dis- charged duties assigned to him. The petitioner was transferred and posted to different establishments. His work and conduct was always found satisfactory. There was no complaint with regard to his performance etc. by his superiors.

(3.) The petitioner's appointment vide order dtd. 7/3/1995 was an ad hoc appointment under Rule 31 of the Rules 1966. The Rules of 1966 were amended on 10/4/2003 vide the Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralised) Services (Twenty-First Amendment) Rules, 2003, which introduced Rule 21-A into the said Rules. It provided for regularization of ad hoc employees, which applies to the petitioner's case. The petitioner asserts that under Rule 21-A of the Rules of 1966, as amended by the 21st Amendment, his services should have been regularized in the year 2003 itself, but on account of the respondents' lethargy, there was a time lag in issuing the necessary regularization orders. A regularization order, relating to the petitioner along with some other employees, was made on 11/10/2006 by the Director, Local Bodies, U.P., Lucknow.