PREM PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri M. H. Chauhan, the learned Counsel, holding the brief of Shri Satish Chandra Rai, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for the remaining respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Driver-cum-Mechanic on 1 st of August, 1980, as isclearfrofn paragraph Sof the writ petition and Annexure'1'tothewrit petition. THE petitioner contends that he is working on that post, si?ce then, without any break in service. THE petitioner alleged that from 7th March, 1998 onwards, the respondents stopped his salary and that juniors to the petitioner were also regularised in service and that the same benefit was not extended to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a writ petition, which was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to consider and decide his representation. Based on the said order, the authorities-rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of his service and payme?t of regular salary on the post of Driver-cum-Mechanic, by an order dated 28th September, 1999, on the ground that there was no sanctioned post of Driver-cum- Mechanic. THE petitioner, being ag-grieved by the said order, filed Writ Petition No. 29999 of 2000. During the pen-dency of the said writ petition, the respondents passed another order dated 4th March, 2002 stating therein that the petitioner would be absorbed as a Class IV employee, provided he gives up his claim on the post of Driver-cum-Mechanic and withdraws his earlier writ petition. THE petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed the present Writ Petition No. 37901 of 2003.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1980 as a Driver-cum-Mechanic and his services were utilised by the respondent No. 5 continuously for 20 long years, and during this period, the respondents never batted their eyelids even for a single second in permitting the petitioner to work on a non-existing post, and Now when the petitioner asked for regularisation of his services and payment of regular salary, the authorities stopped his salary and further promised to appoint nim on a class IV post, provided the petitioner withdraws his claim on the post of driver. This attitude of the respondent is nothing but an unfair labour practice, which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.