SARITA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was initially appointed in the post of clerk on daily wage basis for a period of three months on 17th April, 1991 as is evident from annexure-1 to the writ petition. The services were thereafter extended by an order dated 18th July, 1991 contained in anneuxre-2 to the writ petition for another period of three months. Thereafter, it was further extended for a period of three months by an order dated 3rd December, 1991 the services were extended for another period of three months as is evident from anneuxre-4. Again by an order dated 29th May, 1992, the services of the petitioner were extended for a period of three months as is apparent from annexure- 5. Thereafter, by an order dated 18th June, 1992, there was a general order for dispensing with services of all such daily wage employees since there was no provision for appointment of such daily wage employee under the ?Rules and that employment has been brought within the purview of the U.P. Sub-ordinate service Selection Commission. Pursuant to the said order, by an order dated 19th June, 1992, the petitioner's services was dispensed with. These are annexure-6 & 7 respectively.

(2.) By means of this Rules, Mr. Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner had assailed the said order contained in annexure-6 & 7 respectively. Relying on the decision in the case of Rama Shanker Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & others writ petition No. 24413 of 1992 disposed of on 11th February, 1998, Mr. Mishra points out that the impugned order contained in annexure-6 has since been quashed by this Court on 11th February, 1998. Therefore, the basis of issuing the order contained in annexure-7 having been non est, the order of termination cannot be sustained. He further contends that since the petitioner had continued for quite sometime, his services cannot be terminated in this manner without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and without following necessary procedure for dispensing with service since there is no allegation as against the petitioner. He further points out from the amendment application filed on 22nd April, 1998 that pursuant to the interim order granted in this writ petition, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 15th January, 1993. But subsequently, the petitioner was not paid salary since April, 1996 till 12th February, 1998. On the other hand, on 12th February, 1998 by an order dated 9th February, 1998 contained in annexure-2 to the Amendment Application, the petitioner's services were against terminated. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present application for amendment in order to bring on record the subsequent events that had taken place during the pendency of the writ petition.

(3.) After hearing Mr. Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K.Saxena, learned Standing Counsel, the application for amendment is allowed. The application for amendment is to be treated as part of the writ petition.