GULAB TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. R. Mehrotra, J. The petitioners are seven in numbers. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 were appointed on different dates in the year 1976 and 1977, and the petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 were appointed in the year 1985 and 1983 respec tively as well as petitioner No. 7 was appointed in the year 1983 as daily wagers in permanent maintenance crew for carrying on the regular maintenance and repair work related to the construction of Audyogic Awas Yojna-Colonies which were constructed by the Labour Department in the State Government.

(2.) ALL the petitioners were employed by the Executive Engineer, with permission of the Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh. Since the date of their employment, the petitioners continued to be in service of the Labour Department as daily wagers till the year 1987, when the petitioners filed the present writ petition. ALL the petitioners have been continuing in service since 2ad July, 1987, in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court in their favour, in the instant petition. These dates give out that at least the peti tioners 1 to 4 in were employment, of the respondents as daily wagers continu ously for the last 10 years, on the date, they filed the writ petition. The petitioners were being paid their monthly salary at the rate of Rs. 14 per day. In computing the aforesaid monthly salary, weekly holidays permissible to the daily wagers under the Government Order were also included in accordance with the circular, dated 28th January, 1987, which has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. It is also not disputed that the petitioners have been receiving bonus for the last four years to which they are entitled as per Government circular. The petitioners have contended in para 10 of the writ petition, that the works and. responsibilities of the petitioners are the same as that of regular class IV employees of the Labour Department, and there is no difference in their work and responsibilities in comparison to the regular class IV employees of the department, aforesaid. This statement, made in para 10 of the writ petition have been replied in para 12 of the counter-affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the daily wagers are engaged on work-charge basis, and their engagement comes to an end alter the work is end. Their duties cannot be equated with that of Class IV regular employees. This averment in the counter-affidavit, does not in effect, deny that the work and responsibilities of the petitioners were the same as that of regular class IV employees of the Labour Department. Only distinction between the two, as pointed put in the counter-affidavit is that; one is engaged on regular basis and other is engaged on work charge basis. This difference has nothing to do with the purpose of duties and responsibilities of the two, as such, the petitioners' statement that their duties and responsibilities are the same as that of regular class IV employees in the Labour Department, remains uncontroverted.

(3.) THE petitioners have also stated in para 23 of the writ petition, that after appointment of the petitioners, a large number of regular appointment have been made to the Office of the Labour Commissioner on class IV posts including the post of Chowkidar, Sweepers, Chaprasi, Beldars and such regular appointments have been made every year. THE petitioners have given details of these regular appointments, made since the year 1980,- viz. In the year 1980, 20 regular appointments, in the year 1981, 10 regular appointments ; in the year 1993, 25 regular appointments ; in the year 1983, 30 regular appoint ments in the year 1986, 25 regular appointments ; had been made, while in the year 1987 12 posts bad been filled up. THEse factual averments have also not been denied in the counter-affidavit. In reply to the aforesaid averments, the counter-affidavit only says that at the time of regular selection for regular post names from Employment Exchange are requisitioned. THE candidates who observed the formalities and fulfil the requisite conditions are allowed to face the Selection Committee. Even daily wagers like the petitioners are also allowed to face the selection. THE petitioners have specifically stated that they were not considered for the appointments. THE counter-affidavit is absolutely vague in replying to the aforesaid averments. THE counter-affidavit does not disclose, under what ruled, the regular selection for 4th class employees, was made and how the posts were duly advertised giving the due opportunity to the petitioners also to appear in the selection. No such documents or specifi cations, have been given in the counter-affidavit. THE bald statement made in the counter-affidavit, cannot be treated to be correct. THE statement made in para 21 of the counter-affidavit, has been sworn on the basis of record. High Court Rules prescribe that if m an affidavit, paragraph is to be sworn on the basis of record, the record itself must be referred in the statement, in affidavit, no such reference having been specified, said bald statement made in the counter-affidavit, cannot be accepted to be correct. THE learned Standing Counsel, in the present matter, aught to have filed the appointment rules under which the class IV employees were required to be filled in the Labour Department. In any case, no details has been given to show that regular selection for 4th class employees was made. It is inferable from the perusal of the statement of pleadings that the regular appointments were made ignor ing the petitioners' claim for regularisation.