The Court examined a writ petition regarding the petitioner's claim for regularization as a Line Man/Pump Operator, noting inconsistencies in the respondents' stance and directing an inquiry.
Writ petition disposed of; directed fourth respondent to examine record and pass speaking order on regularization within eight weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30014 of 2005
Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Rai,Narendra Kumar,O.P.Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The petitioner claims that he was appointed as a Line Man/Pump Operator in Nagar Panchayat Phoolpur, Azamgarh in the year 1991. According to him, services of similarly situated persons were regularised and they were being paid regular salary, but the same benefit was not extended to the petitioner. This compelled the petitioner to file the instant petition seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to consider his case for regularization and payment of regular salary.
Vide an order dated 1.8.2005, this Court directed the respondents to pay regular salary to the petitioner or to show cause by next date of listing.
In the counter affidavit, the plea taken by the respondents is that engagement of the petitioner was of casual nature. He was engaged from time to time as per requirement of work. He had never worked continuously.
In rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has denied the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit and has alleged that he has been working continuously.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Nagar Panchayat Phoolpur states that at present Sub Divisional Magistrate, respondent no.4 is Incharge of Nagar Panchayat. He further states that the petitioner is being paid regular salary. He also states that the alleged claim of the petitioner for regularization would be considered within such time as may be directed by this Court.
The statement made by learned counsel for the respondents is not in line with the stand taken in the counter affidavit.
In the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served in directing respondent no.4 to examine the claim of the petitioner and pass a speaking order, after examining the entire record.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to approach the fourth respondent with a certified copy of this order and a fresh representation. The fourth respondent, upon receipt of representation, shall decide the same by means of a speaking order, after examining the entire record of the Nagar Panchayat Phoolpur relating to the petitioner. The decision in this regard shall be taken by the fourth respondent within eight weeks from the date of receipt of representation.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)
Order Date :- 22.5.2019 SL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be directed to have his case for regularization and salary considerations examined by the fourth respondent.
Sunil Kumar
State Of U.P.
Manoj Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
