RADHEY SHYAM NISHAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Shri R. P. Ram, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the quashing of the orders dated 19.10.1996, 16.12.2005, 26.8.2006 and 29.8.2006, and further has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise the petitioner on the post of Operator Gr. I. THE facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner was appointed on work charge as a Motor Boat Driver/Operator in the Irrigation Department in the year 1971, and since then, is working on that post. THE petitioner alleged that the services of 19 other employees in the Irrigation Department, who were junior to the petitioner, have been regularised, and that the petitioner has been discriminated and, has not been regularised in the service of the Department, for reasons best known to the respondents. THE details of the persons, who were junior to the petitioner, and who have been regularised, has been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. THE petitioner further contended that he is working continuously without any break in service, and that, he made a representation in the year 1995 for the regularisation of his services, which remained pending, and consequently, Writ Petition No. 41 of 1996 was filed, which was disposed of by an order dated 8.1.1996, directing the Superintending Engineer to decide the representation. Even this direction was not complied with, and the petitioner had to file a contempt application, as a result of which, the Executive Engineer issued an order dated 19.10.1996, appointing the petitioner as a temporary employee on the post of Mate in the pay-scale of Rs. 775-1,025. Since the petitioner was working as an Operator and was getting a higher pay-scale, he refused, and made a representation dated 30.1.1997, praying that he should be given the pay-scale of an Operator in the pay-scale of Rs. 1,200-2,040. This representation remained pending and the petitioner again approached the writ court by filing Writ Petition No. 31403 of 1997. THE writ court, by an order dated 27.8.2004, disposed of the writ petition directing the authorities to decide the representation. Even this direction of the Court was not complied with, and accordingly, the petitioner filed another contempt application, and on the fear of the contempt proceedings, the respondents, by an order dated 16.12.2005, rejected the representation of the petitioner, refusing to regularise his services, on the short ground that there was no sanctioned post of an Operator. THE petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) BASED on the aforesaid averments, made in the counter affidavit, the Court issued an order dated 26.4.2006, directing the Superintending Engineer to send his comments to the Chief Engineer, who, in turn, would issue the necessary directions to the Chief Engineer (Zonal), and who will decide the claim of the petitioner. It transpires that, based on the aforesaid direction, the Executive Engineer issued an order dated 26.8.1986, appointing the petitioner on the post of Operator in the pay-scale of Rs. 2,610-3,540. It was contended that the order was passed by the Executive Engineer upon the directions of the Chief Engineer (Zonal) and the Superintending Engineer, and that, the petitioner was regularised on the post, which was vacant in Obra in district Sonbhadra. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this order, filed an amendment application, which was allowed, and an additional prayer was made for quashing of this order dated 26.8.2006 on the ground that the petitioner was receiving a higher pay-scale and was entitled to be regularised as an Operator Gr. I in the pay-scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000.