Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16723 of 2017 Petitioner :- Harendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate him as Gram Rojgar Sewak.
The petitioner was initially engaged on 1.6.2008 as a Gram Rojgar Sewak in Village Gagaur, Block Uon, District Shamli on contract basis. It is stated that he received his honorarium up to 31.5.2009.
The grievance of the petitioner is that his engagement has not been renewed and the respondent authorities are not taking work from the petitioner and other Gram Rojgar Sewaks and their honorarium has also not been paid. The petitioner in paragraph-10 of the writ petition has referred a Government Order dated 29.12.2014, whereby Rs. 60 crore was sanctioned by the State Government for the payment of Rojgar Sewaks for the financial year 2014-15. A copy of the said Government Order is on the record as annexure-3 to the writ petition.
It is stated that the respondent authorities are not taking work from the petitioner and other Gram Rozgar Sewaks. For redressal of their grievance the Association of Gram Rozgar Sewaks has made several representations to the concerned authorities but no action has been taken thereon. The petitioner has brought on record some of the representations made by Gram Rojgar Sewak Sangharsh Samiti, District Shamli on behalf of Rojgar Sewaks, who were working in District Shamli and Muzaffar Nagar under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, for regularization.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents without disclosing any reason are not taking work from the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that engagement of Rojar Sewaks is purely contractual and only for a year and no mandamus can be issued for reinstatement of the petitioner as the appointment was only on contract basis for a limited period.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Concededly, the petitioner's engagement is on the basis of contract for a year. He was engaged in the year 2008 wherein it is clearly mentioned that his engagement is on contract basis. The petitioner has brought on record his agreement wherein the period of his engagement is also mentioned as 'one year'. In the writ petition the petitioner has not clearly mentioned regarding his arrears of honorarium. A large number of representations have been brought on record by the petitioner but it appears that the petitioner himself has not made any representation to the concerned authority for redressal of his grievance. All representations which have been annexed with the writ petition are in respect of their regularization by their association, namely, Uttar Pradesh Gram Rozgar Sewak Sangh.
As regards the Government Order dated 29.12.2014, said Government Order clearly mentioned that the amount sanctioned by the State Government shall be utilized only for the payment of arrears of honorarium.
Additionally a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manjeet Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2017 (4) ADJ 317 (DB) (LB) has held that the engagement of Rojgar Sewak is a contractual engagement and is for one year and expandable to another period of two years hence the Court has refused to interfere in the matter.
This Court in the case of Ramhit v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 16562 of 2016 has held that the appointment of Rojgar Sewak is made under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 and the said Act is a Central Act and the scheme is implemented by the State Government. In the said judgment, the Court has referred two Government Orders dated 23.11.2007 and 25.8.2010 wherein it is provided that initial engagement of Rojgar Sewak is made for one year and it restricts the continuance beyond two years and a fresh engagement has to be made after completion of two years of a candidate.
In the case of Smt. Geeta Devi v. Uma Shanker Yadav and others, 2010 (7) ADJ 169 (DB) the Division Bench has held that a person who has completed his term cannot be appointed again.
In view of the above, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued. If the petitioner has any grievance regarding his arrears of honorarium, it is open to him to make a representation before the concerned authority. In the event any such representation is made within a month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the Court hopes and trusts that it shall be considered by the authority concerned in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within two months thereafter.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 SKT/-