ANURAG PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for a direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the termination order/retrenchment order, if any, after summoning the same from the opposite parties. He further prays for a direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue in service on the post of Mate and pay him salary and also regularize his services forthwith. The grievance of the petitioner is that his case for regularization has not been considered by the opposite parties, even though he has served the department for more than 13 years. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in the Public Works Department on 1.11.1987 and continued as such till 14.11.2000. The aforesaid dates are not being disputed by the counsel for the parties. As the petitioner was working on the cut-off date as well as on the date of notification of U. P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Rules, 2001 and as such, he should have been considered for regularization in accordance with the relevant Rules, but his case was not considered. Being aggrieved, he has preferred representations that too were not decided. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner preferred the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization, under the U. P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Rules, 2001, within a maximum period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.