Allahabad High Court
Mustkim Ali 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. - 34716 of 2006
Petitioner :- Mustkim Ali
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 order dated 29.5.2006 passed by respondent no. 4 (Annexure "9" to the writ petition).
(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to give the salary as regular appointee Class IV employees in the department of Forest.
(c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to disturb the peaceful functioning as daily rated employee and also direct to regularise the service of the petitioner with effect the direction or initial appointment on the post held by him in the Forest Department."
2. Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, submits that petitioner has approached this Court earlier by way of filing Writ Petition No. 16637 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 petitioner was considered for regularization, however the same was rejected by means of impugned order on the ground that petitioner has not worked regularly and even he has 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 petitioner has not worked for a single day from 1995 to 2001.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents has supported the impugned order.
5. From perusal of impugned order as well as the material available on record, it is evident that learned counsel for petitioner has miserably failed to contradict the factual finding mentioned in the impugned order that petitioner has not worked regularly and even he has not worked for a single day from 1995 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
