KASTURI LAL Vs. JAGDISH PARIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim of the petitioner in this writ petition is that in the year 1993, respondent no. 2 identified village Karole Krishna as an appropriate block under the component village Wood Lot for raising closures under the said scheme. It is pleaded in the writ petition that respondents 3 to 5 approached deceased father of petitioner and put a proposal for plantation (raising of closures) and gave assurance that two persons of family would be provided employment in the department in addition to sharing of the proceeds out of the closures. It is also pleaded that deceased father of the petitioner handed over the possession of over 35 hectres of land to the respondents in May 1993. Further case set out in the writ petition is that petitioner and respondent no. 6 were engaged as daily rated workers in August, 1993 in the office of respondent no. 4 immediately after possession of the land was handed over to the respondents. It is also pleaded that the respondents have assured that services of the petitioner and respondent no. 6 would be regularised in the near future. Further, case of the petitioner is that he worked at Karole Krishna Closures no. 1 at Mathra Chak block of Hiranagar from August, 1993. Respondent no. 4 made recommendation in respect of the daily rated workers which included the petitioner and respondents 6 to 8 for their consideration for being brought on regular establishment in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. Though, respondent no. 6 was brought on regular establishment but the petitioner has been denied such consideration on the ground that he was engaged after 31.01.1994. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed writ petition on hand for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint him as Helper in view of his being engaged as daily rated worker in August, 1993, with a further prayer to trace the service record of the petitioner which shows his engagement w.e.f. August, 1993. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to compensate the petitioner due to undue loss caused to him.

(2.) On notice, respondents have filed objections wherein it is pleaded that service record of the petitioner was lost, however, photocopy of the same was preserved. It is further pleaded that petitioner case for regularization could not be considered as he was engaged in February 1994.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the respondents and considered the matter.