HARI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri J. K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the opposite parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that inadvertently he could not array the Superintending Engineer, Lok Nirman Vibhag, Lucknow Division, Lucknow as opposite party No.5 and he may be permitted to impead the same. The oral prayer is allowed and he is permitted to make necessary amendment in the writ petition during the course of day. Petitioner submits that he had joined on muster roll basis on 1.9.186 in the Provincial Division of Lok Nirman Vibhag, U.P., Lucknow. The petitioner has put in almost 21 years of service and is fully eligible to be regularized under the U.P. Regularization and Appointment (on Group 'D' Post) Rules, 2001. He has specified in para 4 of the writ petition that the persons junior to him, namely, one Sri Chandra pal Singh, who was engaged on 1.1.1987 has been given the benefit of regularization while the petitioner has been discriminated and his services have not been regularized till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer only to the extent that the petitioner may be allowed to represent his case to the competent authority i. e. Superintending Engineer, who may be directed to decide his representation on the basis of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case. Learned Standing counsel has no objection if the case is decided today itself. Accordingly, the newly impleaded opposite party No.5 i. e. Superintending Engineer is directed to look into the matter and take a decision and pass a speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order along with fresh representation is placed before him. With these observations, the writ petition stands finally disposed.