Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Ors on 24 September, 2014
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 59
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 52159 of 2014
Petitioner :- Mahendra Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.8.2014 by which the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been declined. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned notice dated 3.9.2014 for termination of his service.
The petitioner was engaged as a seasonal collection Amin in the year 1992 and certain other persons namely Virendra Pal Singh and Sudesh Kumar were also engaged likewise. The petitioner continued in service till the year 1995. The services of Virendra pal Singh and Sudesh Kumar were terminated by order dated 17.8.1995. Thereafter they filed writ petitions in this Court in which interim orders were passed in their favour in the year 1995 and in pursuance thereto they were reinstated in services whereas in the case of the petitioner, who had also filed a writ petition in this Court claiming that Sudesh Kumar, junior to him has been reinstated in service, he may also be reinstated, in his writ petition, an interim order was passed by this Court on 24.5.1996 in favour of the petitioner and he was reinstated in service on 10.12.1998. The writ petition of other two persons abovenamed were allowed on 1.4.2013. The writ petition of the petitioner being WP No. 2826 of 1996 was allowed on 10.4.2014 with the following observations:
"Since this matter arises out of the same impugned order dated 7.8.1995 and the facts of this case are squarely covered by the facts of similar case of Writ A No. 22339 of 1995 (Virendra Pal Singh v. Dy. Commissioner and others), which has already been decided by this Court on 1.4.2013, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the Writ A No. 22339 of 1995 (Virendra Pal Singh v. Dy. Commissioner and others)."
The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had been engaged in the department way back in the year 1992 and continuously discharging his duties. Since then without any adverse remark from any superiors petitioner is discharging his duties and his conduct has always been up to mark. Therefore, he is also entitled to be considered for regularization in the light of observation made by this Court in the case of Virendra Pal Singh (supra).
Learned counsel for the petitioner states in the similar circumstance, much junior to the petitioner's services has already been regularized in the department and the petitioner has been discriminated in this regard.
I have seen the pleadings and perused the record.
The case of the petitioner is also identical to the case of Virendra Pal Singh and the present writ petition is also disposed of in the light of the observation made by this Court in Virendra Pal Singh (supra).
Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the newly impleaded respondent no. 5, Joint Commissioner (Administration) Trade Tax, Agra to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and pass an appropriate order.
The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the newly impleaded respondent no. 5, Joint Commissioner (Administration) Trade Tax, Agra to consider the case of the petitioner, from the date of production of a certified copy of this order within three months time".
In pursuance of the aforesaid, the case of the petitioner was considered by respondent no. 4 and his claim for regularization has been declined by means of the impugned order dated 4.8.2014 on the ground that he was not similarly situated to Virendra Pal Singh and Sudesh Kumar as they were appointed prioer to 30.6.1998, which is the cut off date in the Regularization (IIIrd Amendment) Rules, 2001, whereas the petitioner herein was appointed on 10.12.1998 i.e. after the cut off date.
The reasoning in the impugned order is that the petitioner is not covered by the aforesaid Rules, 2001. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 3.9.2014 has been issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why his services may not be terminated.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that his claim for regularization has wrongly been rejected treating his appointment as on 10.12.1998 whereas, in fact, the interim order was passed by this court in favour of the petitioner on 28.5.1996 which was complied belatedly., as such, the petitioner cannot made to suffer for the wrong of the respondents. On the other hand, the other persons namey Virendra Pal Singh and Sudesh Kumart were reinstated immediately after passing of the interim order in their favour by this court in the year 1995 and consequently their services have also been regularized.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, further action in terms of impugned notice dated 3.9.2014 is stayed. The petitioner shall be entitled to continue in service.
Let a counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within four weeks. List thereafter.
Order Date :- 24.9.2014
SKS
