Sughar Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 3613 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 39
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44102 of 2011
 
Petitioner :- Sughar Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Pankaj Srivastava
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking regularization and minimum of pay scale in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Putti Lal, reported in (2006) 9 SCC-337 and the Government Order dated 7.9.2002.

Ms. Suman Sirohi, learned Standing Counsel, states that if the petitioner is claiming regularization under the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group "D" Post Rules, 2001 and claiming minimum pay scale under the Government Order dated 7.9.2002, which is based on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Putti Lal, reported in (2006) 9 SCC-337, it is on the part of the petitioner to establish that he was in employment as a daily wager prior to 26.6.1991. No document has been annexed along with the writ petition showing that he is working prior to 29.6.1991. She further submitted that no document has been annexed to show that the petitioner claimed minimum pay scale after the decision of the Supreme Court and the Government Order dated 7.9.2002 and, therefore, there is no justification on his part to claim the regularization and minimum of pay scale after 9 years.

Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire documents are with the Forest Department and they are not providing the necessary documents. Even under some of the circulars, issued by the

Senior Officer, a direction has been issued not to issue any document relating to their employment. In the circumstances, it is difficult for the petitioner to produce the documents. He further submitted that this Court in contempt petition has directed the authorities concerned to prepare the seniority list/eligibility list of those workers, who were in employment prior to 29.6.1991. But in the S.L.P. filed by the State of U.P., the order passed by the

learned Single Judge has been stayed and the matter is seized with the Apex Court. He further submitted that the respondents are going to fill up the posts without considering the case of the petitioner and in case if the posts will be filled up, the petitioner's right will be frustrated.

In view of the above, it would be appropriate that the learned Standing Counsel may file counter affidavit.

Let the counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List thereafter.

Any future appointment will be subject to the decision of the writ petition.

Order Date :- 8.8.2011

OP