RAM CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri O.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the respondents. The appellants had filed a writ petition in the year 1991 claiming regularization on the post, on which they were working for more than 5 years. During the pendency of the writ petition, it appears that several of the petitioners to the writ petition were regularized and given the pay scale, whereas the petitioners could not be regularized and they were also not given minimum of the pay scale. Present appellants are two petitioners of the writ petition for whom, learned Signle Judge has observed that they be also considered for the regularization in service on the post of Office Assistant Grade-II. This Special Appeal has been filed by these two appellants being aggrieved by the correction made in the order passed by the learned Single Jduge, by means of which in place of Office Assistant Grade-I, the Office Assistant Grade-II was substituted. The plea of the appellants' counsel is that, in fact, though the respondents' counsel during the course of argument had conceded for considering the regularization of the appellants also on the post of Office Assistant Grade-II, but the learned Single Judge did not agree with the said plea and, therefore, passed the specific order that the appellants shall be considered for regularization on the post of Office Assistant Grade-1, but later, on correction application being made the said post has been changed to Office Assistant Grade-II that too without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that there are many similarly situated persons to whom benefit of regularlization has be given on the post of Office Assistant Grade-I that also of the pay scale, but the appellants are being discriminated. There is a complete denial of the aforesaid fact by Shri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, who submits that neither under any rules nor under any notification of the board, the appellants are entitled for regularization on the post of Office Assistant Grade-I. He categorically denied further that any person similarly situated has been given benefit of regularization in the said pay scale on the post of Office Assistant Grade-I. However, learned counsel for the respondents reiterated his stand. In our opinion, the controversy raised in the appeal does not require any consideration, as we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in so far as he directed for the regularisation of the appellants also in service as has been done to the other petitioners of the writ petition during the pendency of the writ petition. The appellants can only claim regularization which plea has been accepted by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, we give liberty to the appellants to make representation to the Managing Direction of U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Lucknow, regarding the plea that regularization of other similarly situated persons have been done on the post of Office Assistant Grade-I and, therefore, they are also entitled for being regularised as Office Assistant Grade-II. If such representation is made, the same shall be considerd and disposed of expeditiously. In case, the benefit of regularization has been given to similarly situated persons on the post of Office Assistant Grade-I, the same shall be considered for the appellants and other like persons also. The special appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid direction.