PREM SHANKER UPADHYA Vs. AKHAND PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 91 was filed by the petitioner Prem Shanker Upadhya for the following reliefs. (i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the list of 1990 for regularisation of services and /or regularise the services of the petitioner as Meth. (ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent not to remove him from service after 10-1-1991 and pay him the salary regularly. (iii) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(2.) HE has alleged that he is a Shastri Degree holder from Sampuranand Sanskrit University, U. P. Varanasi. HE has been working as a Meth Since April, 87 in Public Works Deptt. U. P. Allahabad. HE worked for more than 240 days in the year 1987 and more than 240 days in the year 1988 and for the whole of the years 1989-90. HE is still working. However, the present work is likely to continue till 18-1- 1990, after which the petitioner shall be removed from ser vice. Service record of the petitioner has been quite good and appreciated by the su perior officers. The petitioner is a tem porary employee having been employed from time to time as and when there is a work in the department. Apart from petitioner, Sarvashri Dilpher Yadav and Durga Saran Singh were also employed on a temporary basis from time to time. How ever, they are juniors to the petitioner.

(3.) NOTICE was issued. But after giving repeated opportunities to the respondents to counter the allegation made by the petitioner, they did not do anything and did not file any counter-affidavit till today. On 21-5-93, the Court passed the follow ing order: - "in view of the detailed averments made in the writ petition and the supplementary af fidavit, the petitioner's name was liable to be included in the list of 1990 for regularisation of service. The action of the respondents in not including the name of the petitioner is absolutely arbitrary and illegal. Writ petition is allowed with cost. Respondents are directed to include the name of the petitioner in the list of 1990 prepared for regularisation of the services of the temporary employees and give the same treat ment which has been given to other employed who were appointed along with him or there after. The action in pursuance of this order shall be taken by the respondents within 2 months' from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before them. "