Allahabad High Court
Janmejai Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 6 Ors on 25 September, 2014
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 59
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 52259 of 2014
Petitioner :- Janmejai Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Niraj Tripathi,Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, senior Advocate assisted by Sri Niraj Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State.
The petitioner was engaged by respondents as Class IV employee. His services were terminated. The petitioner filed a WP No. 25401 of 1995 before this Court wherein an interim order was passed on 15.9.1995 in favour of the petitioner. On the strength of which the petitioner continued to remain in service as a temporary employee. The said writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 17.1.2013 with the following observations.
"I have considered the rival submissions. The appointment letter of the petitioner reveals that the appointment was temporary and it was specifically mentioned that the service of the petitioner can be terminated without giving any notice at any point of time. There is no evidence to show that under any Government Order or Rule, the services of the petitioner have ever been regularized. By letter dated 15.07.1994 merely the pay scale of the petitioner has been enhanced but the status of the petitioner has not been changed. Therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned order. It is settled principle of law that the interim order does not confer any legal right to the petitioner. However, in case, if the petitioner is able to show any Rule or Government Order he is entitled to be considered for the regularization of his service for which it is open to the petitioner to make such claim before the authority concerned.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of."
Thereafter the case of the petitioner was considered for regularisation by the concerned authority and by means of the impugned order dated 10.9.2014 his claim has been rejected on the ground that he had worked only from 10.8.1993 to 1.9.1995 on fixed payment basis, therefore, he is not entitled for regularisation as he did not complete the requisite 3 years of service under the regularization Rules.
The contention of Sri Khare is that the concerned authority has committed error in excluding the services rendered by the petitioner since 1995 till date and in the order of this Court dated 17.1.2013 there was no such observation that the said period was to be excluded. If the actual period of service is taken into consideration, the petitioner was clearly eligible under the Rules.
On the other hand, learned standing counsel submits that the period of service rendered on the strength of the inteirm order cannot be counted for the purpose of regularisation in the light of Supreme Court decision i.e. State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi; 2006 Vol. 6 SCC page-1.
I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record.
Once the legal position is very well settled that services rendered by an employee under the interim order of this Court followed by dismissal of the writ petition would not be taken into consideration for the purpose of regularisation, the contention of Sri Khare that the service period of the petitioner subsequent to the year 1995 till 2014 should have also been considered, is incorrect and misconceived.
In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Supreme Court, I do not find any error in the impugned order dated 10.9.2014. Once the writ petition of the petitioner wherein the termination order of the petitioner was under challenge was dismissed, the petitioner is not entitled to continue in service. Moreover, I also find that in the judgment dated 17.1.2013 also this court while dismissing the petitioner's earlier writ petition mentioned above, had observed that interim order does not confer any legal right upon the petitioner to be in service. Against the judgment dated 17.1.2013 passed in WP No. 25401 of 1995 filed by the petitioner, a special appeal is said to be pending before a division bench of this Court.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 10.9.2014 does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the constitution of India.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.9.2014
SKS
