Ashok Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.—Petitioner was engaged as Registration Clerk in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bhadohi on daily wage basis sometimes in 1987 and 1988. He has filed the present writ petition for the following reliefs:-

I) a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner for regularization on the post of registration clerk in Stamp and Registration Department in the view of judgment and order dated 11.05.2004 of this Hon''ble Court passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1429 of 2002 as well as the directions given by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Khagesh Kumar case and also in view of Government Order dated 08.09.2010.

II) Any other writ order or direction which this Hon''ble Court may deem, fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case so that justice may be done.

III) And award cost of the petition.

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis as Registration Clerk in 1987 and 1988. In pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Khagesh Kumar Vs. Inspector General of Registration, petitioner filed an application before the Inspector General of Registration to continue on daily wage basis or to regularize him in service. His application was rejected by Inspector General of Registration vide order dated 26th August, 1996.

Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has filed a Writ Petition No. 27708 of 1998 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on 2.1.2001. This Court has permitted petitioner to make fresh representation before the competent authority. In compliance thereof his representation was rejected on 2.6.2001.

Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 14129 of 2002 and this writ petition was clubbed along with other petitions filed by similarly situated persons. All the petitions were allowed by a common judgment and order of this Court dated 11.5.2004.

In the above noted case, this Court had directed the respondents that the petitioner shall continue in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Khagesh Kumar and Awadhesh Kumar and others in Civil Appeal No. 7500 of 1996. The State of U.P. filed a Special Appeal No. 597 of 2004 against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.5.2004. The said special appeal is still pending. Since no interim order was passed in favour of said authorities in their special appeals, the petitioner made applications and reminders for compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge.

In the meantime, State Government has issued an order dated 4.10.2010 to create surplus post in Stamp and Registration Department for regularization of the daily wagers who were working in pursuance of the order of this Court. Petitioner states that 410 surplus posts have been created for the purposes of regularization of daily wage employees, who were working in the department. Thereafter another Government Order dated 13.12.2010 has also been issued in respect of daily wage employees working in the Stamp and Registration Department.

The petitioner''s case is that in pursuance of the aforesaid Government Orders dated 4.10.2010 and 13.12.2010, 392 persons have been found suitable for regularization. The criteria for regularization is said to be cut of date i.e. 29th June, 1991 as prior to the said date, the employees who were working on daily wage basis were said to be regularized. However, the petitioner''s case has not been considered and he has not been communicated any decision disclosing the reasons for his non-consideration.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.

The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that only prayer in the writ petition is for consideration of the petitioner''s claim for regularization on the post of registration clerk and, as such, no direction can be issued by this Court to regularize the services of the petitioner. He has further submitted that petitioner has not sought any relief to quash the order dated 31.12.2010. The said order has been enclosed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition.

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties.

From perusal of the order and the list appended therewith, total 392 daily wage employees have been regularized who have worked between 1983 to 21st June, 1991. Petitioner claims that his appointment falls under the aforesaid dates and, as such, he was also entitled to be regularized. Petitioner''s earlier Writ Petition No. 14129 of 2002 has been allowed by this Court on 11.5.2004. Petitioner''s case is at Serial No. 71 of the list of the judgement in Writ Petition No. 27230 of 2003 (Ramveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary Institutional Finance U.P. Govt. Lucknow and others). Admittedly, against the said order, defective special appeal has been filed which is still pending. However, no interim order has been passed. In the meantime, subsequent development has taken place and the State Government had issued two Government Orders creating fresh posts to enable the department to regularize the services of daily wage employees. In pursuance thereof, 392 persons have already been regularized. Learned Standing Counsel has filed a short counter affidavit. However, no causeable reason has been given for non-consideration of the petitioner''s case for regularization.

In the background of the aforesaid facts, end of justice would be met, in case, a direction is issued to the respondent No. 2 i.e. Inspector General of Registration U.P. at Allahabad to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization after giving opportunity and pass a reasoned order. Petitioner is permitted to file fresh documents in support of his case alongwith certified copy of the order of this Court. Respondent No. 2 shall decide his representation within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.