SANTOSH KUMAR BAJPAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as daily wage employee in 1988 in District Rural Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as "D.R.D.A.") and has been continuously working since then. In the meantime, he approached this Court twice in the matter of regularization and this Court disposed of the writ petition directing him to approach the concerned authority but the request has been rejected by the authorities concerned. Hence, by means of the present writ petition he has challenged the order dated 5.10.2007 whereby his representation has been rejected and the authority has also said that no employee need be appointed in Class IV service in D.R.D.A. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to continue him to work on daily wage basis and pay salary accordingly and to reconsider his case in the light of the judgment passed in writ petition No. 2280(S/S) of 2006 (Badloo Ram and another v. State of U.R and others) decided on 19.4.2006 a copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure 4 to the writ petition.

(2.) From the scheme of D.R.D.A. it is evident that it is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act but considering its bye laws, its management etc. which is only made by the officials of the State Government, it may be said that it satisfies the definition of 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India being an instrumentality of the State. However, that itself is not sufficient to make the employees of DRDA at par with the employees of the State Government or to attract the statutory provisions applicable to the State Government employees framed under Article 309 (Proviso) of the Constitution of India suo motu.

(3.) A perusal of the Government Order dated 17.3.1994 shows that since the funds to DRDA are made available by Central Government as well as State Government collectively, hence finding it difficult to make any set of rules for the employees of DRDA, certain guidelines were issued by the State Government with respect to appointment, seniority, pay and other service conditions of the employees of DRDA. Para 5 of the Government Order dated 17.03.1994 shows that since DRDA itself is a temporary body, the entire appointments shall be made therein on purely temporary basis and they shall be liable to be terminated at any point of time. It further provides that the employees recruited directly in DRDA shall be considered for permanence if the permanent posts are made available. In respect to seniority, efficiency bar and pay scales etc., separate guidelines have been given in paragraphs No. 6,7 and 8 and thereafter in para 9 it provides for other subjects which are not already dealt with in the said Government Order that the incumbents appointed in the DRDA may be governed by such rules, regulations or orders as are applicable generally to govern the servants of State Government. Para 9, therefore, does not per se attracts the entire set of rules and regulations applicable to the government servants, to the employees of DRDA but it is applicable only in those matters which are not already dealt with in the said Government Order or not governed by some special orders. To that extent only the remaining aspects shall be governed by the corresponding rules, regulations and Government Orders applicable to the serving Government servants generally and not beyond that.