RAM BABU KUSHWAHA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the third writ petition filed by the same petitioner in respect of his grievance relating to non-consideration of his claim for regularization in the employment of respondents. It transpires that petitioner first approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 12168 of 2018 which came to be disposed of vide following order passed on 21.05.2018 :-

(2.) The petitioner is seeking consideration of his claim for regularization under the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the Purview of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 with the assertion that the petitioner is working on the post of Driver since much before the cut off date under the aforesaid rule i.e. 31.12.2001 With reference to the details of working of the petitioner at page '17' appended as Annexure no.'2' to the writ petition, it is contended that the petitioner has continuously been engaged as driver in the forest department in different schemes/projects. Submission in paragraph no.5 of the writ petition is that the petitioner is discharging the duties of Jeep Driver till date. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.3 namely Chief Conservator of Forest, Jhansi Division Jhansi may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of regularization in the light of the relevant provision of Rules' 2016 within stipulated period. To this submission, learned Standing Counsel raises no objection.

(3.) The claim of the petitioner was however, rejected by the Chief Conservator of Forest vide his order dated 24.12.2018. The authority concerned observed that petitioner was first appointed as a Class IV employee in the year 1997 and he continued to work as such till December, 2002 against a Group 'D' post. After 2002, the petitioner was permitted to work as a Driver which is a Group 'C post. Petitioner, therefore, was found to have continued on a Group 'C' post till the date of passing of the order by this Court. His claim for regularization on a Group 'C' post was declined on the ground that on the cut off date i.e. 31.12.2001, the petitioner was not employed on a Group 'C' post but was working against a Group 'D' post. The expression used 'as such' in Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the Purview of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 (herein after referred to as Rules of 2016) was relied upon to hold that the working has to be on one post on the first cut off date i.e. 31.12.2001 and also on the date when the Rule itself was enforced i.e. 12.09.2016. Petitioner's claim was accordingly rejected. This order was then challenged again before this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 3357 of 2019 wherein following order was passed on 12.03.2019 :-