Satish Kumar and others vs State of U.P. and another

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard Mr. Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Amar Saran, learned Standing Counsel.

With the consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.3 has been engaged on daily wage basis prior to cut off date as provided under the U. P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group ''D'' Posts Rules, 2001, whereas the petitioner No.1 has been engaged on the said post two months after the cut off date and the the petitioner No.2 has been engaged w.e.f. 1.4.1994.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing the claim of the petitioner No.2, but restricts his prayer that the opposite party No.1/State Government may be directed to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group ''D'' Posts Rules, 2001 after relaxing the period of two months, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the cases of Harsh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. [(2008 (26) LCD 85] and Narayan Singh v. State of U.P. [2007 (25) LCD 90].

Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection in case State Government is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the State Government to consider and decide the case of the petitioner No.1, in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group ''D'' Posts Rules, 2001 after relaxing the period of two months, in light of the observations made in the aforementioned citations, within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in case he is working.

It is further provided that the case of the petitioner No.3 shall be considered in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group ''D'' Posts Rules, 2001, within the aforementioned period, in case he is working.

As the learned counsel for the petitioner is not pressing the claim of the petitioner No.2, the writ petitioner is dismissed as not pressed on his behalf.

At this stage, learned counsel for petitioners submits that he does not want to press the writ petition in respect of petitioner No.2.

Accordingly, it is dismissed as not pressed on behalf of petitioner No.2.