Km. Minaxi vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Tandon, J.—Heard Sri Parikshit Saini learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Beena Pandey learned standing counsel for the State of U.P.

By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to place the petitioner in employment in accordance with the Government Order No. 23/25/1973- Karmik/2, dated 21-9-1981.

Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is a farmer at Village Bajuhedi in 1982-85, Upper Ganga Canal modernization project was started and a parallel upper Ganga Canal was to be constructed by a project of World Bank. Almost about � Agricultural Land of the petitioner''s father was being acquired by the State of U.P. for Upper Ganga Nahar Project. The Tehsildar, Roorkee prepared a list of the persons, whose land stood acquired for the aforesaid project. Petitioner''s father name stands at Serial No. 16.

According to the petitioner as per Government Order No. 23/25/1973- Karnik-2 dated 21-9-1981 all those persons whose land has been acquired by the State of U.P. were entitled to be given employment.

In pursuance of the aforesaid G.O. dt. 21-9-1981, the petitioner applied for being appointed on the basis of the G.O. dt. 21-9-1981 as a Class-IV employee with the respondents. The petitioner was given appointment on Muster Roll basis in pursuance of the G.O. dated 21.9.1981 however he was removed from the Job on 31.3.1987. In the year 1997, the petitioner''s father preferred a Writ Petition before the Hon''ble Allahabad High Court, which was transferred to the Uttaranchal High Court and was disposed of vide order dated 22-4-2004, with the direction that the representation of the petitioner''s father Sri Meghraj Singh shall be decided in accordance with the G.O. dated 21-9-1981.

Thereafter the respondent N0.3 vide his letter dt. 1-3-2005 wrote to the Superintending Engineer, categorically stating therein that the petitioner has been making representations for being appointed in pursuance of the G.O. dt. 21-9-1981 as his land was acquired for the project but as the new appointments were banned by the Central Government, therefore, necessary permission was sought from the Government regarding appointment of the petitioner.

Following interim order was passed on 11-1-2000 is as under:

This petition was filed in the year 1997 on the ground that more than 3/4th of the entire land of the petitioner was acquired by the State Government for Department of Irrigation for a certain project and that he was entitled for getting employment as per Government Orders on the subject These averments have not been disputed by the respondent by filing counter affidavit.

Subsequently, petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit along with application No. 54044 of 1997. No counter Affidavit has been filed against it also. In paragraph 4 of the Supplementary Affidavit it is stating that major holding of the petitioner was acquired; he was given appointment as Chowkidar on Muster Roll basis and he worked as such for more than one year. This case was not been considered for being absorbed as per Government Order dt. 21-9-1981 (copy filed as annexure -2 to the petition).

Petitioner further alleges that his name has been struck off from the Muster Roll even though the work and vacancies are existing in the Department According to the petitioner (paragraph 10 of the Supplementary affidavit). One Sandeep Kumar has been appointed on 28-3-1995 in the project in an arbitrary manner.

In view of the above a prima-facie case has been made out, petitioner is suffering irreparably and balance of inconvenience is also in his favour. In absence of the counter affidavit, inspite of sufficient opportunity being availed to the respondents, the facts stated in the petition and the supplementary Affidavit stand unrebutted for the time being. Consequently, I issue an ad interim mandamus directing the respondent to take back the petitioner in the service and pay his salary month by month, but petitioner shall, however, not be entitled for back wages for the period for which he has not actually worked. It is further made clear that in case the petitioner is not appointed for want of work and or post at the moment, he shall be given preference in future and no appointment shall be made, unless he is appointed. The above stipulation is subject to the condition that any similar selected person shall have preferential right over the petitioner ignoring this order.

Liberty is given to the petitioner to represent the authorities for passing appropriate orders in pursuance of the order dt. 11.1.2000.

Both the parties have agreed that the matter may be decided directing the respondent to pass suitable orders on the representation of the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks after the production of the certified copy of the order in accordance with the G.O.dt. 21-9-1981.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (sic) to costs.