JAGDISH PRASAD MISHRA Vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the order dated 26.10.2002 passed by Divisional Forest Officer, Shravasti and for a writ of Mandamus directing opposite party no. 2 to consider and regularize the services of petitioner ignoring the artificial break of short period. By impugned order dated 26.10.2002 representation of petitioner for regularization has been rejected on the ground that while working as a daily wager there was a gap of 32 months and hence, he was not entitled for regularization under Regularization Rules of 2001.

(2.) Case of petitioner is that he was appointed as a Daily Wage employee on Class IV post in the year 1977 with Forest Department and he continues to be working till filing of writ petition and even thereafter. In para5 of writ petition has given details of his working on the said post:

(3.) For his regularization petitioner filed writ petition no. 5050 (S/S) of 2002 which was disposed of by order dated 109.2002 directing respondent no. 2 to decide the representation of petitioner. In compliance of said order of High Court, representation of petitioner has been considered and rejected on ground of there being break in his work. Petitioner claims that impugned order has been wrongly passed and the same is contrary to the Regularization Rules. He relies upon Rule 4 of U.P. Regularisation of daily wages appointments on Group 'D' posts Rules 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 2001'). Said Rule 4 reads as follows: