RAM PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk in Vikas vibhag in 1972. He continued to work till November, 1981. In a scheme known as national Adult Education a post of Office Assistant fell vacant. The petitioner was a temporary employee since 1972 and he also applied for the post under the scheme through proper channel. He was appointed under the scheme as Office Assistant on 26. 11. 1981 with a condition that his services are temporary and he can be sent back to his parent department on the post held by him. In the appointment letter a note was appended that Block Development Officer, Baitalpur, Deoria may relieve the petitioner. He was relieved by order dated 15. 1. 1992 passed by respondent no. 3 and he joined under the scheme. The petitioner continued to work under the scheme and on 31. 3. 92 the Adult Education Scheme was closed and he was reverted to his parent department directing him to report to Chief Development officer, Deoria. The petitioner submitted his joining report to respondent No. 3 on 6. 4. 92. A reminder was also sent on 18. 6. 92. Another representation was made on 27. 7. 92 on which respondent No. 3 permitted the petitioner to join and put his signatures but after two months he was again disengaged. No salary was paid to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner represented before the Commissioner who made a query on 18. 11. 1992 as to why no salary is being paid to the petitioner inspite of his joining. Thereafter nothing was done by the respondents. The petitioner filed the instant writ petition for a direction that he be permitted to join his duties and for payment of salary.

(2.) I have heard Sri A. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri v. J. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that he was appointed in 1972 in the office of respondent No. 3, he was sent on deputation in Adult education Scheme and after the scheme was closed since he was on deputation he was reverted back to his parent department. The respondents initially permitted the petitioner to join his duties, but illegally did not pay salary to the petitioner.