NARENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Narendra Singh Son of Baba Singh (petitioner) claiming a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit him to work in view of order dated 5-9-1995 (Annexure 6 to the petition), by means of which he was reinstated, to treat the petitioner in service by not giving effect to the order of termination dated 28-4-1995, to regularise the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment on Class IV post in the department of the Government of U.P., to pay him arears of difference of pay from the date of initial appointment on Class IV post in the department, to issue a writ as this Court may deem fit, in the circumstances of the case and award cost of the petition.

(2.) Petitioner contended that he was appointed, through selection, on the post of Tube-well Assistant against a clear vacancy on the basis of an appointment letter dated 21-8-89 (Annexure 1 to the petition). It is contended that his duties and responsibilities were similar to that of regularly appointed Class IV employee in the department and there was no difference either in the nature of duties or in the quantum of work and hence he was entitled to salary as is being admissible to regular employee on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

(3.) According to the petitioner he was suspended vide order dated 25-10-94 (Annexure 2) followed by a charge sheet dated 23-1-95 (Annexure 3 to the petition). Petitioner appears to have sumitted some explanation as is evident from Annexure C.A. III to the Counter Affidavit filed by the respondents. The respondents, in defence, contend that the services of the petitioner were sought to be terminated on the ground of malice on the part of Pradhan of the Village and also on statements of the villagers recorded .by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer (Assistant Engineer III) submitted its report/recommendation to the Executive Engineer(Annexure 4). In the said report Enquiry Officer mentioned that the petitioner, Assistant Tube-Well Operator, was called by him for giving his explanation and recommended that said Assistant Tube-Well Operator be removed from Government service. After enquiry report, petitioner submitted his explanation dated 2-2-95 (Annexure C.A. III). As stated above, his defence was two fold. Firstly, he was victimised out of malice and secondly, the villagers statement, relied against him, were not of 'genuine residents' of the village, where his Tube-well was situated.