Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35406 of 2002 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Agrawal And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- D.B. Kauser,Rollie Kauser Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Tiwari,G.D.Srivastava,K.S.Chaudhary,Shiv Nath Singh Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Called in revise. None appeared to press this writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel is present for respondents. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.
2. By means of present writ petition, petitioners have sought following reliefs:
“A- to issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to afford the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 950-1400 and revised scale of pay of Rs. 3050-4590 to the petitioners with effect from 1st August, 1990 and 1st January, 1996 respectively based on the functions/duties of Clerk discharged by them with all consequential benefits of seniority, promotion to the next higher scale of pay.
B- to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the irregular appointment/regularisation of Daily Wagers as Clerks since arbitrarily resorted to the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly (Respondent No. 4) at any point of time on or after 1st August, 1990;
C- to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding Respondent No. 2:
(a) to make new Recruitment Rules patterned on the format obtaining in Central Government, and
(b) to establish a Service Board as a common agency for recruitment of personal of all the Nagar Nigams/ Nagar Palikas of the State of Uttar Pradesh (based on a uniform eligibility; method of recruitment) and their promotion to the higher posts/scales of payment commensurate with their qualification/experience.”
3. I myself have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that petitioners are not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for.
4. Moreover, it appears that either the cause of action no more survives or the petitioners have lost interest in this matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and, probably for this reason, none is interested to have decided this matter on merits and that is why, counsel for petitioners is absent.
5. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 22.2.2019 PS