Court No. - 21
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 542 of 2018 Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Bharti Respondent :- Sbi And 3 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav,Jitendra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Satish Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
This appeal is barred by limitation from 80 days. Ignoring the same we have considered the merits of the case.
This appeal is before us to examine the correctness of the order dated 03.05.2018 passed by the learned single Bench in Writ Petition No. 42983 of 2005.
In brief facts of the case are that appellant petitioner at the first instance preferred a petition for writ before this Court bearing No. 27743 of 2003 that came to be disposed of on 04.07.2003. In the case aforesaid a direction was given to consider and decide the representation submitted by the appellant petitioner for regularization of his services on the post of Sweeper. In pursuance to the direction given the authority competent decided the representation by regularizing services of the appellant petitioner w.e.f. 01.08.2004. After receiving the order dated 01.08.2004, the appellant petitioner submitted another representation on 20.01.2005 with the assertion that he is entitled to be regularized in service w.e.f. 18.03.1987, the date on which persons junior to him including Shah Alam were regularized. On being failed to get any relief in the administrative side the appellant petitioner preferred a petition for writ i.e. Writ-A No. 42983 of 2005 with a prayer for his regularization in service w.e.f. 18.03.1987. Learned single Bench dismissed the petition for writ by arriving at the conclusion that no effective relief by issuing writ in the nature of mandamus can be given since appellant petitioner has not questioned the correctness of the order dated 06.08.2004.
On going through the facts of the case it is apparent that at the first instance the respondent employer did not regularize services of the appellant petitioner though the persons junior to him were placed on regular cadre. Being aggrieved by the same he preferred petition for writ that came to be accepted and pursuant to the direction given therein the employer ultimately decided to regularize the services of the appellant petitioner w.e.f. 01.08.2004. Within a period of four months thereafter the appellant petitioner submitted a representation dated 20.01.2005 for regularization of services w.e.f. 18.03.1987, the date from which persons junior to him including Shah Alam and Ram Babu were taken in regular cadre of class IV post. Not only this, the appellant petitioner quite diligently in the year 2005 itself preferred a petition for writ to have regularization in service from the date same relief was extended to his juniors.
True it is no specific challenge is given by the appellant petitioner to the order dated 06.08.2004 regularizing his services w.e.f 01.08.2004 but the prayer with regard to regularization of his services from the date his juniors were regularized clearly indicates that the appellant petitioner was not satisfied with the regularization of his services w.e.f. 01.08.2004 and for that he agitated his cause diligently. Non challenge to the order dated 06.08.2004 cannot be treated to waiver of right of the appellant petitioner to have regularization in service from an earlier date.
In view of it, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal by directing the respondents to consider claim of the appellant petitioner as prayed in the writ petition for regularization in service w.e.f. 18.03.1987 within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Appeal is disposed of, accordingly.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 Shekhar [Chandra Dhari Singh, J.] [Govind Mathur, J.]