Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32692 of 2001 Petitioner :- Mahendra Kumar Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Bajpai,In- Person,Umesh Narain Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Following orders were passed in the matter on 24.9.2018:-
"The appointment letter enclosed along with writ petition as Annexure No.1 clearly indicates that the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis as is clearly indicated therein that the appointment of the petitioner will be till the appointment of regular employee or till the date of decision which is taken by the State Government who abolished the said temporarily post.
This Court has passed an order dated 27.9.2001, which is quoted hereinbelow:- "Admit.
Issue Notice.
Respondents may file Counter Affidavit within two months. Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within one month thereafter.
Respondents are restrained from making appointment on the post held by the petitioner or interfering with his work in any manner and also ensure the payment of salary regularly month by month as may be admissible under law from time to time. This order, however, does not prevent the competent authority including the respondents from taking disciplinary action if such an oaccasion arises and warranted under law.
The stay application shall be listed immediately after three months. It is made clear that the Writ Petition shall be decided itself at that time"
Learned Standing Counsel is directed to place on record the stand taken by the State Government in pursuance of the contents of the appointment letter as well as the order dated 27.9.2011.
List this petition on 11 October 2018 at the top of the list."
In the writ petition counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit have been filed. Attention of the Court has been invited to para 4 & 7 of the supplementary counter affidavit, as per which, petitioner was since appointed on adhoc basis, therefore, he was not entitled to additional increment after completion of 8 years and 14 years service. His entitlement to grant of benefit under ACP scheme is also disputed. In para 7 it is stated that since petitioner's representation is pending, therefore, his name has not been included in the seniority list. In para 8 it is also stated that petitioner's claim for regularization has not been considered under the U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2001 due to pendency of the writ petition.
From the materials brought on record, it is apparent that petitioner has been continuing since his initial appointment made on 6.2.1992 and that no appointment has otherwise been made against such post in view of the interim order passed. It would, therefore, be appropriate to dispose off this Court with a direction upon the appointing authority to consider petitioner's claim for regularization in accordance with U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001 and an appropriate order would be passed, within a period of three months from the date of presentation certified copy of this order. Petitioner's further continuance shall abide by the orders to be passed by the competent authority, as indicated above.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed off.
Order Date :- 11.10.2018 Ashok Kr.