PREM SHANKER Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER BINDKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether direction of the Court to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of service can be rejected by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate without assigning any reason.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of collection peon on 31.5.1984 on ad hoc basis. He continued till 25.4.1990 with two breaks in service. His service was terminated on 25.4.1990, under U. P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975. He filed C.M. Writ No. 17713 of 1990, in which' the termination order was challenged. It was claimed that under Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 as amended by Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on the posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) (IInd Amendment) Rules, 1989 (in brief Rules) the petitioner's services were liable to be regularised. Therefore, the order terminating his services without considering his claim for regularisatlon was contrary to law. The termination order was stayed on 20.7.1990. But the respondent did not comply with it. The petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 786 of 1990. The petition was not decided as the Court was of the view that stay vacation application be decided first. The writ petition was dismissed on 30.4.1997. This was challenged in Special Appeal No. 627 of 1997 which was disposed of on 1.9.1997. The relevant direction of the division bench is quoted below : "The Competent Authority will consider the case of the petitioner-appellant for regularisation of service in accordance with the aforementioned Rules without being influenced by and notwithstanding the order of termination of service and communicate the order within three months of production of a certified copy of this order before him. The writ petition and the Special Appeal are disposed of in the manner aforesaid. The Competent Authority may give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-appellant if he feels it necessary."

(3.) It is alleged in the writ petition that the order was communicated immediately but when no order was passed, the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court again by way of Contempt Petition No. 1084 of 1998 which is still pending.