STATE OF U P Vs. RAM KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE department of minor irrigation U. P. Lucknow declined to regularize the services of respondent No. 1 Ram Kishore who was working as a daily rated employee with the department since 1992. THErefore respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition No. 39367 of 1996, Ram Kishore v. Superintending Engineer Minor Irrigation Division Lucknow & Ors. THE said writ petition was disposed of by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 10-12-1996 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) on merits directing the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Kanpur Dehat to decide the representation with regard to his regularization by a speaking order within a period of two months. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the Executive Engineer on 19-2-1997 rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularization. This order became final conclusive and was not challenged in any higher forum.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 instead of agitating the matter before the higher authorities or the Court moved an application dated 12-10-2001 before the U. P. State Backward Classes commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission) under the provisions of the U. P. State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1996. In the application no mention was made of the earlier filing of the writ petition and the decision of the High Court thereon as well as rejection of the representation in pursuance of the directions of the High Court. THE Commission vide order dated 19-2-2004 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) issued direction to regularize the services of the respondent No. 1 and for payment of arrears of salary within a period of one month and to report compliance to the commission. This order/report of the Commission submitted to the State Government, has been challenged in the present writ petition by the State of U. P. through Principal Secretary, Minor Irrigation and two others.

(3.) IN view of the above since the order impugned Is only of a recommendatory nature and has no binding effect upon the State Government, we are of the opinion that this writ petition is not maintainable. The preliminary objection raised by the respondent No. 1, therefore, succeeds.