Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13162 of 2019 Petitioner :- Harish Kumar Respondent :- State Of Up Through Its Chief Secretary Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Dubey,Anil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S. Shekhar
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
By means of the present writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 8.5.2019 whereby his representation pursuant to the order of this Court dated 10.1.2019 in Writ petition no.324 of 2019 has been rejected.
The order impugned categorically records that the petitioner was appointed in Meerut Logging Sub-Division, Shamli Division, on the post of 'Cook' on daily wage basis (purely temporary engagement). His assertion that he was working on the post of 'Driver' during the period of engagement is incorrect. Further on 20.6.2018 he has been removed from service by the Section Officer, in as much as, he was not discharging the duties assigned to him. Entire wages and allowances uptil 20.6.2018 had been paid to him. Since after 20.6.2018 as he was not in duty, no payment can be made to him. As far as the claim of petitioner for regularisation, it is noted in the order impugned that the post of 'Cook' is not a substantive post and as such there cannot be regularisation against the same. A note has been appended to the order impugned to record that the entry made by the petitioner of his presence on 3.8.2018 in the office is interpolation in the 'attendance register' and the proceeding for the same is in contemplation.
These assertions in the order impugned are being challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner with the support of the assertion in the writ petition that the petitioner was working on the post of 'Driver' in the department as his engagement was on the post of 'Driver' on contractual basis since 5.8.2011. In support of the said submission, a copy of the "experience certificate" dated 17.2.2014 has been appended.
On a pointed query made by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to produce the appointment letter of the petitioner, if any, on the post of 'Driver' on contract basis.
Further submission that the salary to the post of 'Driver' was being paid to the petitioner during the period of engagement would not be of any assistance, in as much as, the engagement letter is not on record.
It is admitted that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis and since after 20.6.2018 he has not worked in the department. Salary of the petitioner for the period for which the petitioner had worked has already been paid. There is a categorical denial in the order impugned of the fact that petitioner was working on the post of 'Driver' which could not be assailed by bringing any cogent evidence on record. Service rules which would provide for regularisation of the employees working on the post of 'Cook' has not been brought on record nor any assertion could be made in this regard. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner state that there is no sanctioned post of 'Cook' in the department.
For all the aforesaid, no interference is required. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Harshita