SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashutosh Shukla, holding brief of Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3.

(2.) It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been continuing on the post of Clerk for the last about 15 years in the services of the respondent nos.2 and 3 on contract basis. He has further stated that State Government by means of order dated 24.02.2016 has directed to regularize the services of daily wagers and those engaged on work charge basis or on contract. The Government Order dated 24.02.2016 further directs necessary amendments to be made in the service rules.

(3.) A Division Bench of this Court has entertained a petition bearing Writ-A No.21167 of 2016; Yamendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and five others filed on behalf of similarly circumstanced contractual employees and has passed an order on 10.05.2016 providing therein that one post shall be reserved. This Court in yet another judgment dated 09.06.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.13710 (S/S) of 2016 has provided that the petitioners therein shall make a representation for ventilation of their grievances which shall be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. The operative portion of the order dated 09.06.2016 passed in W.P. No.13710 (S/S) of 2016 is quoted below:-