YAMUNA PRASAD DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel. The petitioner worked as Collection Peon under the respondents 2 to 4, but his services were not regularized, although the persons junior to him were regularized. Being aggrieved by the discriminatory action of the respondents, the petitioner filed a Claim Petition before the Tribunal in the year 1998. The Tribunal directed the respondents to enquire into the matter as to how persons junior to the petitioner were regularized, but the petitioner was denied the said benefit. In spite of the directions issued by the Tribunal, the services of the petitioner were not regularized. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition inter alia on the ground that the claim of the petitioner for regularization has wrongly been rejected overlooking the fact that the persons junior to the petitioner were regularized. In the rejection order, it is mentioned that the petitioner has crossed the maximum upper age limit and the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been argued that the petitioner was engaged in the year 1974 as Collection Peon and continued as such from time to time. Therefore, rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground of overage is unwarranted. The petitioner should have been given the benefit of relaxation, which too was not given. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that the case of the petitioner shall be considered afresh, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was engaged on the post in question in the year 1974 and persons junior to him were regularized. It is clarified that in case, the petitioner is within age limit on the date when the services of his juniors were regularized, but his claim has been rejected only on the ground of overage, though the petitioner submits that he is within age limit, as prescribed under the rules, the authority concerned shall re-consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits he may be allowed to make a representation to the authority concerned for relaxation of age. If such a representation is being moved within ten days from today and the competent authority relaxes the age limit, then the petitioner's case shall be re- considered for regularization, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.