Krishna Gopal Srivastava vs The State of U.P.

Hon''ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Heard Mr. Amit Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

The writ petition has been filed for suitable order or direction to the opposite parties to treat the petitioner having been regularized with effect from 10.2.2000 the date when the order dated 5.7.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition no. 4932 (SS) of 1995 was affirmed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal no. 2 of 1999.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wages on the post of Tracer/Draftsman in the year 1989. He had filed Writ Petition no. 4932 (SS) of 1995 seeking direction to the opposite parties to consider the petitioner for regularization and pay salary regularly. By the judgment and order dated 5.7.1999 this Court had disposed of the said writ petition with the direction to the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization, in case there is vacancy, temporary or permanent in Group-C post within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

The opposite parties preferred the Special Appeal no. 2 of 1999 against the said judgment and order dated 5.7.1999. The Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 10.1.2000 had dismissed the Special Appeal with direction to the opposite parties that the consideration of the process of regularization may be concluded within one month from today. The opposite parties thereafter in compliance of the said judgment have regularized the petitioner by order dated 23.4.2010.

The contention is that the petitioner is entitled to be regularized at least from the date of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal no. 2 of 1999. The opposite parties have not disclosed any reason for not regularizing the petitioner from the date the Division Bench of this Court had directed the opposite parties to complete the process of regularization. Further contention is that in the year 1999 when the direction was issued by the Court there were fifteen vacancies existing of the post of Tracer. In this regard the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the letter dated 9.12.1999 issued by the Superintending Engineer (E-2), Public Works Department, Lucknow, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition.

In the Counter affidavit the stand taken by the opposite parties is that the petitioner has been regularized in compliance of the judgment and order dated 10.1.2000, however, no reason has been given for the delay in passing the compliance order and regularizing the petitioner with effect from 23.4.2010 only.

It is evident from the record that this Court while disposing of the writ petition no. 4932 (SS) of 1995 had directed the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization within three months. The opposite parties had preferred the Special Appeal against the said order, which too was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 10.1.2000 with the observation that the process of regularization shall be completed by the opposite parties within one month from the date of judgment.

It appears that the opposite parties have regularized the petitioner by order dated 23.4.2010. This Court is of the view that the petitioner was entitled to be regularized from the date of the judgment dated 10.1.2000, which was passed in Special Appeal no. 2 of 1999.

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed with the direction that the petitioner shall be entitled to be given the benefit of regularization with effect from 10.2.2000 with all consequential benefits.

Subject to the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed.