SHIV SHANKER YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri N. C. Mehrotra, learned counsel representing the U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and learned Standing Counsel representing the State-authorities, what emerges in this case is as follows:

(2.) The said fact is apparent from a letter dated 24.09.2007 which has been annexed as Annexure RA-7 to the Rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner which was written by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture Marketing and Agriculture Foreign Trade, Section-1 to the Deputy Secretary in the Department of Secretariat Administration (Section-1). There are various other documents available on record of this writ petition which point out that the State Government has been writing letters to the authorities of Mandi Parishad annexing therewith the copies of petitioner's muster roll for paying remuneration to him. From 25.07.2007 the petitioner was repatriated to Mandi Parishad by the State Government. However, after petitioner's repatriation to Mandi Parishad he has not been allowed to join at Mandi Parishad to discharge his duties there.

(3.) It has been submitted by Shri N. C. Mehrotra, learned counsel representing the Mandi Parishad that the petitioner was engaged under 2% contingency in a project at Allahabad and on the completion of the said project, his services were no more required. His submission is that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 2(e) of the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Produce Markets Board (Officers and Staff Establishment) Regulations, 1984 the petitioner having been appointed he was paid remuneration from contingency as such he can not be termed an employee of Mandi Parishad. His further submission is that the petitioner has served the State Government for 8-9 long years, however, only on the basis of alleged oral instructions when the petitioner submitted his joining in the State Government, he cannot be said to have been sent on deputation by Mandi Parishad and in any circumstance since he has not been an employee of Mandi Parishad as such for the period he is said to have worked in the State Government, Mandi Parishad cannot be shouldered with the responsibility of payment of remuneration or salary, even if he is entitled to the same.