Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the termination order, if any. The petitioner has further prayed that the opposite parties be directed to allow the petitioner to continue his post with all consequential benefits.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially engaged on 15.03.1997 in the Rural Engineering Services Department, Gonda on the post of Chowkidar on daily wages. The petitioner was working on the said post continuously till 01.11.2005 and thereafter, his services were orally terminated. He further submits that after eight years of continuous service and inspite of several requests, the services of the petitioner has not been regularized by the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Gonda Division, Gonda (opposite party no.3). The services of the petitioner has been discontinued from 01.11.2005 by oral order without giving any reason whereas the other similarly situated persons have been allowed to continue.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has again submitted that the services of the petitioner have been terminated without giving any opportunity of hearing and also the petitioner has not been provided the benefit of Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, the termination of the petitioner is illegal and the petitioner is entitled for his regularization.
Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the petitioner was never engaged in the department on the post of Chowkidar and the documents appended in the writ petition are forged and fake documents. He further submits that since the petitioner has not been engaged in the department, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for regularization is unacceptable.
I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
According to the petitioner, he was engaged as Chowkidar on daily wages in the Rural Engineering Services Department, Gonda on 15.03.1997. The engagement of the petitioner on the post of Chowkidar was not against any of the regular vacant post or such engagement was made through an advertisement and the statutory provisions. The specific case of the respondents is that the petitioner was never engaged in the department and the documents annexed by the petitioner in the writ petition are forged and fabricated. In rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has simply denied the allegations contained in the counter affidavit. During the course of argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner has also failed to establish his case that he was engaged on daily wages in the department concerned.
For the reasons stated above, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.8.2019 akverma