LAXMAN SINGH Vs. ATIRIKTA SACHIV SAMANYA PRABANDHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises in this writ petition is whether refusal to regularise an ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner was contrary to Regulations in 1985. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 18.1.1983 on the post of Co-operative Supervisor on ad-hoc basis. The petitioner joined in January 1983 and the petitioner along with 45 other Co-operative Supervisors were terminated from service which challenged in writ petition No. 6243 of 1985 in which termination order was stayed and the petitioner continued his service and the writ petition was allowed on 20.11.1992. The judgment, dated 20.11.1992 was challenged by respondent No. 4 in Special Appeal No. 5 of 1993 which was decided on 7.8.1995 wherein the respondent No. 3 directed to consider the claim of petitioner for regular appointment. The claim of the regularisation was considered by the respondents and the petitioner's claim was rejected by order, dated 8.1.1996 which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri H.N. Tripathi and Shri K.N. Mishra counsel appearing for respondents to appreciate the controversy relevant part Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of ad-hoc appointments (on posts within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Institutional Service Board) Regulations, 1985 is quoted below,-

(3.) The respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner by their order, dated 8.1.1996 on the ground that the petitioner was appointed on 18.1.1993 and Regulations 1985 came into force on 30.7.1985 and since on the date of which Regulations 1985, came into force the petitioner did not complete three years of service. The view taken by the respondents is based upon misreading of Regulations 4(iii) of the Regulations 1985 which provides that regularisation of ad-hoc appointment can be made after the employee has completed three years of service which clearly means that either the employee had completed three of years of continuous service on the date when the Regulations came into force or even after coming in force of the rules where the employee subsequently completes the period of three years of continues service on ad-hoc basis he shall be entitled for regular appointment. The petitioner was appointed on 18.1.1983. The petitioner was terminated from service on 31.3.1985 and he continued in service in pursuance of the stay order passed in Writ Petition 6243 of 1985 and the writ petition was finally allowed on 20.11.1992. In special appeal by judgment, dated 7.8.1995, it was provided that the petitioner shall be treated to be in service on 30.5.1985 and further the petitioner continued in service as per stay order passed in Writ No. 6243 of 1985 till 1992. Therefore, the petitioner has completed more than three years of continuous service and was entitled for regular appointment under Rule 4(iii) of Regulations 1985 and the impugned order, dated 8.1.1996 which is based on total non-application mind cannot be upheld.