ANGAD VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri A. R. Masoodi, learned counsel for the-petitioners and Sri R. D. Sahi, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) THE petitioners, who are Seasonal Collection Amin working in District Ambedkar Nagar, have filed the present writ petition being not satisfied with the decision taken by the respondents for the purposes of regularisation of their services in pursuance to the regularisation rules. THE petitioners have discharged duty as Seasonal Collection Amin since between 1985 to 1999. According to the petitioners' counsel, from the date of their initial engagement they have been continuously discharging duty on the post of Seasonal Col lection Amin. THE dates of their appointment have been given in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, which have not been disputed.

(3.) THUS, a plain reading of the case of Mata Deen (supra) shows that this Court had di rected the respondent State to consider all the petitioners for regularisation, who are found eligible under the Regularisation Rules. This Court had further provided that all the incum bents shall continue in service until and unless their cases for regularisation are considered. However, in compliance of the judgment dated 7-3-2006, while considering the petitioners' cases for regularisation the respondents have recorded a finding that in the absence of regu lar vacancies their cases cannot be consid ered for regularisation. Whenever vacancies will arise, they shall consider the cases of the petitioners for regularisation. A copy of the order dated 31-8-2006 has been filed as An nexure No. 5 to the writ petition.