DURGA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court to establish his identity. He has made the following prayers :

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed provisionally as Overseer vide order dated 23.12.71 and he joined the same on 25.1.72. A copy of the appointment order is annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. This provisional appointment was subsequently approved by the U.P. Public Service Commission. He was thereafter confirmed vide order dated 27.3.81 and was placed at serial No. 159 of the confirmation list. THE petitioner also passed the departmental professional examination of Junior Engineer which was held in October, 1985, therefore, he was absorbed in higher grade.

(3.) IT is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition which came up for admission on 6.5.93 when following orders were passed : "Learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of opposite parties and prays for and is allowed two weeks time to seek instruction as to why the representations of the petitioner submitted before the opposite parties contained in Annexure Nos. 6 to 10 have not been considered so far specially for the reason that the petitioner is consistently submitting that he is different person than D. P. Singh regarding whom letter dated 10.6.1987 contained in Annexure No. 5 has been issued by one Girish Chandra Gupta, Engineer-in-Chief, U.P. P.W.D. making adverse entries. Due to mistaken identity the petitioner is debarred from his promotion and salary, etc., is not being paid due to some adverse entries awarded to another D. P. Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he was never posted at Moradabad till date. If the facts averred are correct, it is indeed very sorry state of affairs in that a wrong person is being punished and then his representations remain lying unattended List this case on 20th May, 1993."