ARUNESH KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law that arises for consideration in this petition filed by a class IV employee is whether a person appointed against a vacant post till further orders could be restrained or prevented from working/attending office without any order?

(2.) The petitioner was appointed on 7.6.90 on daily wages on the post of waterman. He was transferred from Kanpur to Jhansi in September, 1991. On 14.11.91, he was appointed on the vacant post of class IV on a fixed salary of Rs. 750 p.m. His appointment was to continue till further orders. The petitioner made a representation that he has been working satisfactorily, therefore, he may be regularised. In the last week of February, 1994, the Bhoomi Sanrakshan Adhikari, suddenly, without any reason did not permit the petitioner to attend and sign the attendance register. The petitioner approached this Court and filed this petition in the first week of March, 1994 and claimed that he was High School and was appointed against a vacant post, yet he was not being permitted to work without issuing any show cause notice or passing any order. On 17.3.94, this Court directed the petitioner to make a representation and the respondent was directed to decide it with speaking order. The petitioner immediately made a representation, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 18.11.94. In paragraph 2 of the representation, it was stated that he continued in service till 28.2.94. In paragraph 6, it was claimed that he made a representation on 22.6.92 for regularisation which was forwarded by the then Bhoomi Sanrakshan Adhikari with recommendation in favour of the petitioner. In paragraph 7, it was stated that the Bhoomi Sanrakshan Adhikari without assigning any reason directed the petitioner on 28.2.94 orally not to sign the attendance register. This representation was dismissed on 12.5.94, copy of the order has been filed as Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, facts are not denied. The allegation in paragraph 12 of the writ petition that he worked regularly from 7.6.90 till February. 1994 is not denied. What is claimed in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner was engaged during summer vacation as a waterman on daily wage basis. And there was no vacant post of class IV employee in the department, therefore, there was no question of appointing petitioner on class IV post. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, it is alleged that the petitioner absented from duty of his own will without any information or application for leave.

(3.) I have heard Sri Umesh Chandra Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. P. Singh learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.