Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 54373 of 2002 Petitioner :- Ram Subhag Respondent :- State Of U.P. Secretary Irrigation Dept.Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilanand Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 04 of 2020:
Cause shown in the Affidavit for delay in preferment of the Restoration Application is found to be sufficient. Accordingly, the delay in filing the same is condoned. The Delay Condonation Application is consequently allowed.
Order on Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 05 of 2020:
Cause shown in the Affidavit filed in support of the Restoration Application is found to be sufficient. Accordingly, the order dated 24 January 2019 dismissing the petition is hereby recalled. The restoration application is consequently allowed. The petition stands restored to its original number.
Order on Petition:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.P. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
The petitioner challenged an order of termination of 30 November 2002. By the aforesaid order the engagement of the petitioner on ad hoc basis as a Chaukidar was brought to an end with the respondents invoking the provisions of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. When the writ petition was originally entertained, this Court by an order dated 19 December 2002 had placed the order of termination in abeyance. Pursuant to the aforesaid order the petitioner admittedly continued in service. The rejoinder affidavit thereafter discloses that the respondents by an order of 10 September 2009 promoted the petitioner to Junior Clerk pursuant to the provisions made in a Government Order of 08 September 2005 which provided for the promotion of Class -IV employees to a Class -III post. Thereafter and by a subsequent order of 23 September 2016, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. Neither of the two orders were made subject to the outcome of the present writ petition. The promotion accorded to the petitioner was substantive and permanent.
The aforesaid recordal of facts would thus reflect that the respondents for all practical purposes have proceeded to treat the petitioner as a regular employee and have also granted him promotion in accordance with the executive instructions which apply. Viewed in that light, it would be wholly inequitable and unjust to examine the validity of the original order of termination which was placed under suspension when the writ petition was originally entertained on merits and at this point of time.
In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition shall stand consigned to the record.
Order Date :- 29.9.2021 Arun K. Singh