RAS BIHARI SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Awadh Behari Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.J. Akhtar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) By the impugned order the claim of regularization of the petitioner as Class-IV employee has been declined solely on the footing that he does not possess the qualification of pump operator.

(3.) Petitioner was initially appointed as pump operator on 15/5/1995 in the respondent Nagar Palika Parishad, Kushinagar. The petitioner was appointed on Class-IV post, and has been discharging duties of different categories of Class-IV employees like Safai Nayak. The respondents in their counter affidavit as admitted to the fact that the petitioner is a Group-D employee engaged on contractual basis. According to the counter affidavit different kinds of duties were being discharged by the petitioner as per the work assigned to him by respondent no. 4. A Group-D employee has to perform different roles as per the direction of the employer.