AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10-8-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the application for modification of the judgment and order dated 8-12- 2006.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise this case are that the petitioners-appellants claim to have been working with the respondent Moradabad Development Authority, Moradabad (hereinafter called the 'authority') as Daily Wagers since long, as they had been engaged between the period 1-12-1996 to 1-1- 2000. A combined seniority list of such daily wagers was prepared according to their dates of engagement. THE Government issued an order dated 13-4-1998 which provided to consider such persons engaged on daily wages for regularisation provided they had been appointed prior to 19-12- 1989. Subsequently, the Government issued another order dated 7-3-2001 for considering the regularisation of such persons who had been appointed before 29- 6-1991. A large number of writ petitioners alongwith these appellants filed writ petitions challenging the cut-off date and seeking regularisation as well as 'equal Pay for Equal Work' from the date of their initial appointment. THE said writ petitions were disposed of vide judgment and order dated 8-12-2006 directing the Authority to consider for regularisation of services of those persons who had been appointed prior to cut-off date, i. e. 29-6-1991 in pursuance of the Government Order dated 7-3-2001. Persons who had been engaged subsequent to the cut-off date, were permitted to continue. However, some of them who had completed a particular period, were directed to be paid minimum of the pay scale. THEse appellants had not completed the minimum period, had not been allowed even the minimum of the pay scale. Being aggrieved, they sought modification of the order dated 8-12-2006 seeking direction for minimum of the pay scale. THE said application has been rejected vide impugned order. Hence this appeal.

(3.) WE have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.