RAM YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a class IV employee on daily wage basis in the forest department in the year 1978. He applied for his Regularisation as a class IV employee in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'd' Posts Rules, 2001, which came into force with effect from 21-12-2001 and for payment of the minimum of the wages admissible to regular class IV employees. THE petitioner's representation was rejected on 19-4-2002 by the Divisional Director, Social Forestry, Pratapgarh. THE petitioner challenged this order by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 19670 of 2002. In the said writ petition a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents admitting that the petitioner has continuously worked from the year 1978-79 to 1994-95 and 230 days in the year 1995-96 while 180 days in the year 1996-97. THE said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 17-10-2005 with the bunch of several writ petitions directing the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the list for consideration of regularisation afresh by the selection committee and till then the petitioner was allowed to continue on daily wage basis with minimum of the pay scale admissible to regular class IV employ ees. In pursuance of the above judgment and order of the High Court the petitioner submitted a fresh representation for regularisation in service on 8-9-2006 which has now come to be rejected by the impugned order dated 17-10-2006.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the rejection of the petitioner's representation on the above ground is against the record and the order is based on incorrect facts. He has placed the report of the Forest Range Officer, Kalakanker, which was submitted by him in pursuance of the letter of the Divisional Director, Social Forestry dated 25-10-2004. In the said report he had given the break up of the petitioner's working. It shows that the petitioner has worked for 348 days in the year 1990-91, 350 days in the year 1991-92, 351 days in the year 1992-93, 355 days in the year 1993-94, 353 days in the year 1994-95 and 230 days in the year 1995-96. He has also drawn my attention to the counter affidavit of respondents in earlier writ petition No. 19670/02 filed by petitioner, wherein it was clearly admitted by the respondents in paragraph 5 of the Counter affidavit that the petitioner had regularly worked from, the year 1978-79 to 1994-95 and had also worked for 230 days in the year 1995- 96 and 180 days in the year 1996-97. THErefore, in view of the admission of respondents on record the recital in the impugned order that the petitioner had not worked for a single day between the year 1991 and 1996 is factually incorrect and against the records. Accord ingly, the rejection of the representation of the petitioner on the above ground is wholly unsustainable and, as such, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.