Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10455 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Harshita Rani Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The petitioner is seeking regularisation in the light of U.P. Regularisation of Persons Working on Daily Wages or On Work Charge or On Contract in Government Departments on Group "C" and Group "D" (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh, Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 (in short 'the Rules, 2016').
Submission is that the petitioner was initially engaged on 1.10.2001 as daily wage Driver under the respondent No.2 namely the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest and Wildlife Division, District Bareilly and was getting Rs.5200/- p.m. The extract of cash/ledger book from July 2005 to July 2017 issued by the respondent No.2 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In paragraph-4 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioner had continued to work from 2001 but due to shortage of budget, payment was not made to him. The certificate allegedly issued by the Range Officer, Singhouli Range (Page-19 of the paper book) is sought to be placed before the Court to submit that the petitioner has continued in engagement since the year 2001 and he is covered by the Rules 2016. His claim for regularisation is, therefore, required to be considered by the Competent Authority.
The contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted for two reasons. Firstly that the petitioner has not been able to prove that he was engaged prior to the cut-off-date i.e. 31.12.2001 as provided in the Rules. Further the contention of the petitioner that he had worked from 2001 till 2005 but payment was not made to him cannot be accepted on the basis of the certificate filed as Annexure '1-A' to the writ petition which cannot be taken as a proof of engagement of the petitioner by the Competent Authority.
In absence of any record of engagement of the petitioner on or before 31.12.2001, and having continued uninterruptedly (ignoring artificial breaks) in the department, the claim of the petitioner for regularisation cannot be considered in the light of the Rules, 2016. The petitioner has failed to fulfil the conditions mentioned therein.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Jyotsana