Allahabad High Court
Dinesh Kumar Maurya vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. ... on 9 May, 2019
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 23
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 13142 of 2019
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Maurya
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Horticulture Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd.Ateeq Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Mohd. Ateeq Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Notices on behalf of opposite parties have been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of order dated 30.04.2019, passed by the opposite party No.3, whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.4 of the writ petition, which is a judgment and order dated 19.04.1991, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4815 of 1988, whereby the petitioner has prayed that he should be paid the pay-scale instead of payment of daily wages besides regularization. This Court issued direction to the authorities concerned to pass appropriate orders considering the case of the petitioner.
As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Plant Operator on 29.01.1988 for the period of three months on daily wages basis, therefore, he filed the aforesaid writ petition.
In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Competent Authority has passed the order dated 07.09.1995 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) providing the pay-scale to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has annexed couple of orders in this writ petition to demonstrate that the Competent Authorities were considering the case of the petitioner for regular appointment. One of those documents is letter dated 30.03.2009 (Annexure No.10 to the writ petition) wherewith some documents have been annexed including the minutes of meeting dated 08.06.2007 regarding the consideration of regular appointment of some employees including the petitioner. The aforesaid minutes reveals that duly constituted committee has recommended the case of the petitioner for regularization. Not only the above, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not only getting the pay-scale but also the other benefits which are being paid to the regular employees.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.12 to the writ petition, which is judgment and order dated 31.08.2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.24938 (S/S) of 2018, whereby this Court considering the grievance of the petitioner directed the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization, strictly in terms of Rules 2016 within a period of three months.
As per learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of considering the candidature of the petitioner for regularization, the Director, Horticulture & Food Processing, Lucknow, opposite party No.2, passed an order dated 17.12.2018 rejecting the claim of the petitioner in respect of regularization in a sheer, illegal and unwarranted manner, without considering the provisions of Rules, 2016.
Feeling aggrieved out of order dated 17.12.2018, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.1252 (S/S) of 2019 before this Court, wherein this Court has called the counter and rejoinder affidavits keeping the said writ petition pending for disposal.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid writ petition was entertained by this Court on 18.01.2019 and as soon as copy of the said writ petition was provided to the opposite parties, they passed the impugned order dated 30.04.2019 terminating the services of the petitioner treating him as a daily wager.
Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 30.04.2019 is arbitrary and unwarranted on the face of it.
The matter requires consideration.
Let the counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
List this petition in the week commencing 22.07.2019 along with Writ Petition No.1252 (S/S) of 2019.
Until further orders of this Court, the operation, implementation and enforcement of the impugned order dated 30.04.2019 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 9.5.2019
Suresh/
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
