Allahabad High Court
Amit Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thru ... on 29 July, 2021
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 16173 of 2021
Petitioner :- Amit Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Urban Development And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghaus Beg
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Namit Sharma
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard Sri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Alok Sharma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner claims that he was granted appointment on the post of Lighter/ Porter on 1.7.2000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Rule-6 of U.P. Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission), Rules 2016, it has been provided that those employees who have been appointed as daily wager, temporary basis or on contract, their claim for regularization shall be considered on fulfilling the criteria provided under the rules.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is working on the post of Lighter/ Porter on contract basis and discharging all duties and functions with the full satisfaction of the respondents. He next submits that the case of the petitioner is covered under Rule-6 of Rules, 2016 and in regard to the grievances, he has represented the matter before the respondent No.3, which is lying pending consideration and no order whatsoever has been passed. He submits that in case direction is issued for consideration of his claim for regularization as per Rule 6 of the Rules, 2016 with the direction to pass appropriate order within a reasonable period, justice would be met.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents invited attention of this Court that in a similar matter, this Court has considered the rules and has issued certain direction for consideration of claim, which are part of the writ petition at page Nos.77, 78 and 79. He submits that in case in the light of the aforesaid decision of this Court, direction is issued to consider the claim of the petitioner, the same shall be considered and appropriate order shall be passed within a reasonable period.
6. I have considered the submission advanced and perused the material on record.
7. On perusal of the claim setup by the petitioner, it is evident that similar controversy was considered by this Court in Writ Petition No.13178 (S/S) of 2021 vide order dated 29.6.2021 and Writ Petition No.14569 (S/S) of 2021 vide order dated 14.7.2021 (Annexure-19 and 20 to the writ petition), whereby by disposing of the writ petition, direction was issued to the competent authority to consider the claim for regularization in accordance with the rules applicable within a reasonable period.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the respondent No.3 to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the judgment referred hereinabove within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021
Gautam
