Allahabad High Court
Mohmmad Islam vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3171 of 2022
Petitioner :- Mohmmad Islam
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Energy Lko. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Pathak,Alok Verma,Mohit Pathak
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neerav Chitravanshi,Vashu Deo Mishra
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State, Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2, 3 and 6 and Shri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 5.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner has sought regularization of his services on Class-IV post and salary commensurate thereof.
The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 2005 (S/S) of 2015. The other persons had also approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 2053 (S/S) of 2015; Nitin Kumar and Ors. Vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. The said writ petitions were disposed of in the following terms:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Both these writ petitions involve similar facts and law, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.
Admittedly the petitioners herein who claim to be erstwhile employees of the U.P. State Electricity Board were retrenched some time in the year 1994. However, they approached this Court by means of these writ petitions in the year 2015 seeking regular appointment on the basis of a letter dated 29.05.2012 contained in Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition and some decision taken in the 89th meeting of the Board of the U.P. Power Corporation Limited as is mentioned therein. Let the petitioners approach the Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation in this regard, who may look into the matter, verify the claim of the petitioners and take appropriate decision in this regard strictly as per law with expedition, say, within a period of three months from the date a certify copy of this order is submitted, as, filing of these writ petitions after 24 years of retrenchment, that too, only on the basis of aforesaid letter does not persuade this Court to entertain these writ petitions any further, but, this is without prejudice to any right which may have accrued in their favour on the basis of any Rule or decision taken by the Board.
It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the merits of the claim of the petitioners whatsoever.
With the aforesaid observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of."
Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2, 3 and 6 has placed before the Court a decision dated 02.11.2017 taken on the representation of the petitioner by the Director, (Personal and Administration). The said decision is addressed to the petitioner. It has not been annexed with the writ petition.
The decision is of 2017. We are now in 2022. In the earlier writ petition also the Court has observed that petitioners have been retrenched in 1994, as claimed, but, approached the Court belatedly in 2015. Moreover, the order dated 02.11.2017, a copy of which has been placed before the Court says that the petitioner in fact was not working at the relevant time i.e. in 1994. He was not covered by the Government Order dated 08.09.2010 for purposes of regularization. The petitioner may avail other remedies, if any, prescribed in law.
A copy of the order dated 02.11.2017 has been served upon the learned counsel for petitioner.
The writ petition can not be entertained at this stage and is dismissed.
(Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 26.5.2022
R.K.P.
