JAIRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Shyam Prakash Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner and Miss Ainakshi Sharma learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) PETITIONERS No. 1 and 2 were appointed on 1. 5. 85 as Mate on daily wages. Petitioner No. 3 was appointed on 1. 9. 85 as Chaukidar. Petitioner No. 4 was appointed as Beldar on 17. 12. 85. All the aforesaid petitioners were working on daily wages in Public Works Department, Varanasi on 12. 4. 89. A letter was issued by Chief Engineer asking for details of those employees who had completed three years continuous service so that they may be taken in permanent work-charge establishment. Since the petitioners had completed three years of service, therefore, by order dated 21. 10. 91 Annexure-4 to the writ petition the petitioners were taken in regular establishment in the resultant vacancies according to the seniority list prepared by the respondents. By order dated 31. 3. 92 the work superintendent has cancelled the appointment of the petitioners in work-charge establishment on the ground that in pursuance of telephonic talk with superintending Engineer the appointment of the petitioners in work-charge establishment stands cancelled with effect from 1. 4. 92. The petitioners challenge the order dated 31. 3. 92 Annexure-6 to the writ petition by means of the instant writ petition and the petitioners have also prayed for regularisation of their services. This Court on 13. 4. 92 passed interim order staying the operation of the order dated 31. 3. 92. The petitioners are continuing in service in the regular work-charge establishment under the interim order of this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that there was no illegality in the order of Superintending Engineer dated 21. 10. 91 by which the petitioners were taken in regular work-charge establishment. The order of Superintending Engineer dated 31. 10. 91 was not cancelled by the respondent and the work superintendent could not revert the petitioners on daily wages on the oral instructions received by him on telephone from Superintending Engineer. Learned standing counsel on the other hand supported the impugned order and urged that since the petitioners' appointment was contrary to Government order dated 8. 1. 90, therefore, the petitioner could not be taken in regular work-charge establishment nor their services could be regularised.