Allahabad High Court
Ayodhya Prasad And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru Secretary ... on 10 August, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34714 of 2006
Petitioner :- Ayodhya Prasad And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secretary Forest Deptt. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui,Arvind Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
"(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 2.6.2006 and 5.5.2006 respectively passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure "9 and 10" to the writ petition).
(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to give the salaries to the petitioners as regular appointee Class IV employees in the department of Forest.
(c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus not to disturb the peaceful functioning as daily wages rated employees and also direct to regularise the services of the petitioners with effect the direction or initial appointment on the post held by him in the Forest Department."
2. Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioners, submits that petitioners have approached this Court earlier by way of filing Writ Petition No. 55037 of 2003 which was disposed of by following order:
"The petitioner has claimed for regularisation of his services and for payment of minimum pay scale on the ground that he is working for several years continuously.
This petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner may file a representation before the authority concerned annexing the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Putti Lal 2002(2) UPLBEC 1595 as well as the judgment dated 29.11.2004 in Visheshwar vs. Principal Secretary, Forest Anubhag and others and order dated 22.3.2005 passed in Special Appeal No. 974 of 2004, Ram Surat Yadav vs. State of U.P. through Secretary Forest Anubhag and others, within six weeks from today. If such a representation is filed, the authority concerned shall decide the matter in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court within four months thereafter.
The writ petition is disposed of."
3. Learned counsel further submits that in pursuance of above order claim of petitioners was considered for regularization, however the same was rejected by means of impugned order on the ground that petitioners have not worked regularly and even they have not worked after 1993. Learned counsel has tried to contradict the above factual finding on the basis of documents annexed alongwith the writ petition, however, he miserably failed and admittedly petitioners have not worked for a single day from 1993 to 2001.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents has supported the impugned order and relied on para 5 of the counter affidavit and relevant part thereof is reproduced as under:
"Petitioner No. 1 Ayodhya Prasad has worked in the Deptt. For certain period till 1992 and thereafter there was a long break of 117 months and similarly, the petitioner No. 2 Raj Narain has worked in the Deptt. Till 1991 and thereafter, there was long break in his service from January, 1992 till December, 2001 whereas in the said rules of 2001, a mandatory condition has been stipulated that those who have continuously worked from 1991 till 2001 without any break service, will be considered for regular appointment and accordingly, the petitioners were not found to be eligible persons as per rules of 2001 for being regularised in service and as such by a well reasoned order dated 2.6.2006 and dated 5.5.2006 the claim and representation of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 has been decided and rejected as per direction and observation of this Hon'ble Court and accordingly, the petitioners were informed about the said decision vide office letter dated 02.06.2006 and 5.5.2005, which are subject matter of present writ petition."
5. From perusal of impugned order as well as counter affidavit and material available on record, it is evident that learned counsel for petitioners has miserably failed to contradict the factual finding mentioned in the impugned order that petitioners have not worked regularly and even they have not worked for a single day from 1993 to 2001. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere.
6. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.8.2022
AK
