DEOKI NANDAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. Heard Mr. Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Sarin, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that on 1.1.1985, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Class IV and since then, he is continuously working on the said post. He further submits that large number of juniors, namely, Nand Ram, Makhan, Shiv Kumar, Ram Sagar, Anoop, Ganga Ram, Raj Kumar Singh, Allan Singh and Ajit Kumar were given regular appointment. As he has not been regularized, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3509 (SS) of 1999 and the same was decided on 22.9.2003 by which the opposite parties were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and to pay minimum of the pay scale without any increment. Thereafter, the petitioner was given the pay scale by an order dated 28.2.2006. Learned counsel further submits that his case for regularization is fully covered under the U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in Harsh Kumar Mishra and others Versus State of U.P. and others [2008 (26) LCD 85]. In view of above, the writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization, in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001.