Bhupendra Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P.and Others

I.M. Quddusi, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

The petitioner is a daily wage employee. He has claimed parity with the order passed in the case of Jitendra and others v. State of U.P. and others of writ petition No.6240 (S/S) of 1991 decided on 26.4.2000. The relevant part of the order passed in the said writ petition is quoted as under:

"In the instant case undoubtedly and undisputedly the petitioners are working for a period more than 12 to 18 years but no reasons have been indicated in the counter affidavit as to why those petitioners have been continued in service on daily wage basis and why their cases for regularization have not been considered so far. The petitioners who have been working for such a long time are thus entitled for regularization.

I, therefore, allow the writ petition and issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to regularize the services of the petitioners on the post on which they are working and to place them in regular pay scale from the date of their regularization. The regularization of the petitioners shall be considered within a period of six weeks from the date the certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned Authority. However, if the petitioners have become overage their age should not come in the way while considering their regularization and in passing the orders accordingly. The writ petition is allowed. No orders as to costs."

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed in the case of Jitendra and others v. State of U.P. and others. In case the petitioner''s case is covered and he has completed 10 years'' regular service on daily wage basis, as the case of Jitendra and others is as quoted above, the petitioner will be considered for regularization as directed in the above order.

(Ordered accordingly)