Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10193 of 2008 Petitioner :- Ram Sakal Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Km. Akanksha Yadav,U.C. Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.K. Srivastava,Shakti Swarup Nigam
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri U.C. Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Alok Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Sri S.S. Nigam, learned counsel for the respondents.
Petitioner was appointed as a Cane Supervisor under the Shakkar Nidhi Scheme floated by the Government of U.P. in Nandgang-Sihori, Sugar Company Ltd., District Ghazipur. The aforesaid Sugar Mill was a unit of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. The appointment of the petitioner was made under Government Order dated 01.03.2004. The petitioner served in the aforesaid capacity in the different Mills of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. for about 10-12 years.
The claim of the petitioner for absorption in the State cadre governed by the U.P. Ganna Pariyakhshak (Group III) Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 1978") has been rejected by the order dated 26.11.2007. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 26.11.2007 and also prayed for the following relief:-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as State Cane Supervisor in the State Cadre as provided in the U.P. Ganna Pariyakhshak (Group III) Rules, 1978 retrospectively from 1.4.1989."
The claim for absorption in the State cadre has been dealt with in the order impugned. It is admitted that the petitioner was working as Cane Supervisor in the Shanganj Unit (Jaunpur) of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. The order dated 26.11.2007, records that by the Government Order dated 01.03.1994 the Cane Supervisors were directed to be absorbed in the Sugar Mills being run by the U.P. Sugar Cane Corporation Ltd. This was a policy decision of the State Government. This is no occasion to revisit the same nor is any rethink of the policy is warranted. The petitioner was absorbed as Cane Supervisor in the aforesaid Mill in pursuance of the said policy. The petitioner accepted this appointment and absorption as Cane Supervisor the Sugar Mill run by U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and assumed charge of the post. He accepted the aforesaid appointment unconditionally and without any demur. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to the Sugar unit of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. at Shahganj, Jaunpur.
There is no provision for regularisation/absorption of Cane Supervisor working in the Mills of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd in the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any provision under the 1978 Rules or any other Rule or provision under which the petitioner could be absorbed in the State Government. On the contrary there is a specific policy of the State Government to absorb Cane Supervisors in the units being run by the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. The petitioner has not and infact cannot challenge the aforesaid policy once he had accepted the appointment a Cane Supervisor in the aforesaid Sugar Mill of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. The status of the petitioner continues to be that of an employee of the Mill being run by U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. The aforesaid Sugar Mill has since been sold to a private party. The petitioner has superannuated from service in the year 2010.
There is no infirmity in the order passed by the respondent no. 2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for absorption in the State Government.
Writ petition lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018 Pravin