Daya Shanker Shukla vs State of U.P.

Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

By means of this petition the petitioner has made following prayers:

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the opposite parties to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Collection Amin and give him all other consequential benefit of regularisation of the same post with effect from the date the services of his junior have been regularised.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties not to create artificial break in the services of the petitioner and allow him to continue, to work and discharge his duties without interruption and to pay him his full regular salary along with usual allowances which is being given to all other employees working on regular basis.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the termination order if any was issued by the opposite parties.

(iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon''ble Court may deem just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(v) Allow the writ petition with cost.

It is submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin and the collection of the petitioner was satisfactory and he was continuously serving. The persons who were junior to him have been regularized in compliance of the order passed in writ petition No. 10539 of 1990 Vs. State of U.P. and others whereby the writ petition of the similarly situated persons, who were junior to him was allowed. This Court was pleased to quash the order dated 19.2.2006 whereby the regularization of the petitioner in the above mentioned writ petition was refused and the opposite parties were directed to be treated as regular collection Amin in service. It is submitted that again in writ petition No. 425 (SS) of 2011 one Shyam Lal who was junior to the petitioner was also given the benefit of the aforesaid judgment vide order dated 9.9.2011. The petitioner prays that benefit of the same order be also extended to him.

Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the opposite party admitted that the petitioner is also similarly situated as the persons of the other writ petition decided earlier.

Therefore, this writ petition being similarly situated is hereby disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 19.2.2006 passed in writ petition No. 10539 of 1990 and the benefit given to the petitioner of the said petition is also extended to the petitioner subject to the rules governing the services of the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is finally disposed of.