Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1011 (ALL)

AJAI PAL v. STATE OF U. P.

2002-08-14

RAKESH TIWARI

body2002
RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as Work meth, on Class IV post in Public Works Department, Banda and to pay him regular salary admissible to a Class IV employee. It has further been prayed that he should not be removed from the service on artificial grounds. ( 2 ) THE brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Work meth, a Muster Roll employee in Public Works Department, Banda and had worked upto 31. 12. 1980. It is alleged that in order to deprive the benefits of regularisation, the petitioner was desequated as daily wager and was attached with contractors. The claim of the petitioner is that since he has completed 8 years of service and has worked more than 240 days in each calendar year, he is entitled for being made regular. In para 4 of the writ petition, it is alleged that juniors to him who also worked similarly have been regularised. The petitioner is aggrieved as the office of respondent No. 2 has issued a list showing the working days. Thereafter the petitioner is working since 1. 1. 1985 but has been shown junior to the employees mentioned in para 4 of the writ petition though he is senior to all of them and is entitled for regularisation. ( 3 ) IT is further alleged that even though the name of the petitioner, was placed in list (Annexure-2) for being regularised as Class IV employee, due to pressure of the respondent No. 2 and Establishment Clerk, his name has been struck off after sanction and he was not regularised. It is alleged by the petitioner that several hundreds of posts of Beldar and Work meth are lying vacant and he can be absorbed as regular employee, still he is being kept as daily wager. ( 4 ) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-regularising the services of the petitioner is arbitrary and discriminatory and is against the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He further contends that since the petitioner has become overage he cannot be employed in any other Government department. ( 4 ) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-regularising the services of the petitioner is arbitrary and discriminatory and is against the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He further contends that since the petitioner has become overage he cannot be employed in any other Government department. ( 5 ) FROM the record, it is clear that there is a serious controversy regarding seniority and regularisation of the services of the petitioner. Neither the appointment letter of the petitioner nor any appointment letters of other employees who were juniors to the petitioner has been filed with this writ petition. Decision on the controversy in this writ petition requires oral and documentary evidence. Such findings of fact can be recorded only by the labour court on the basis of evidence produced before it. The petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy under the provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by raising an Industrial dispute and get the controversy adjudicated on facts as has been held in Re : Chandrama Singh v. State of U. P. , 1991 (63) FLR 478 (FB ). ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that if the petitioner raises an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer appointed under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he will try to bring the parties at settlement. In case of failure, a reference may be made under the provisions of the Act to a labour court for adjudication, which may be decided by the labour court within the time framed under the provisions of Rule 12 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. .