Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 266 of 2011
Appellant :- Bhola Prasad Sahu
Respondent :- District Magistrate, Hamirpur & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Deshraj Singh Chauhan,Mani Shankar Sahu,Om Prakash,Ramgee Prasad
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.81921 of 2010 This appeal is reported to be barred by limitation as there is a delay of one year and one day in filing the present appeal. The petitioner/appellant has duly explained the cause of delay in filing the present appeal in the affidavit supporting the delay condonation application.
We find that the cause for condonation of delay is sufficient. Accordingly, we allow the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. The appeal shall be treated to be within time and shall be given a regular number.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 R./
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 266 of 2011
Appellant :- Bhola Prasad Sahu
Respondent :- District Magistrate, Hamirpur & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Deshraj Singh Chauhan,Mani Shankar Sahu,Om Prakash,Ramgee Prasad
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 12.11.2009 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant.
The appellant/petitioner filed the Writ Petition No.43225 of 1992 seeking the following reliefs:
"i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents for the regularization of the services of the petitioner on the post of Class IV in the I.R.D.P. SCHEME run under the respondent no.2.
ii) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents for the continuation of the services of the petitioner and for the payment of the Salary.
iii) issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner filed as Annexure VII and VIII.
iv) Issue writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. "
It is the admitted case that the appellant/petitioner was initially appointed on ad-hoc basis as Class IV employee in the year 1988 whereafter in the same year the status was converted to that of a daily wage employee, and he worked upto 1992 whereafter the services of the appellant/petitioner were discontinued.
From a perusal of the prayer clause we find that there is no challenge to the decision for discontinuing the services of the appellant/petitioner. The relief of regularization alone was prayed. It is well settled that the regularization can be granted only when the person is in employment and not otherwise.
This being the position, we find no error in the order of learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 R./