Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2711 (ALL)

Guru Ram Veram v. State of U. P.

2013-10-30

ANIL KUMAR

body2013
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar,J.: - Heard Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel and perused the record. 2. Facts in brief of the present case are that the petitioner is working as daily wager employee (Mali) Group D post since 01.01.1987 under opposite Party No.4/ Superintendent, Government of Garden, Faizabad has approached this Court by filing present writ petition with the prayer that opposite parties may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation on the post in question as per the rules known as U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'D' Posts, 2001, Rule 4(1). 3. Learned Counsel for respondents submits that in spite of the repeated information sent to the official respondent, no body has turned up to file counter affidavit. 4. Thus after hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant record in order to decide the controversy involved in the present case and the relief as claimed by petitioner, it is appropriate to go through the provisions of Rule U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'D' Posts, 2001, Rule 4(1) which reads as under: - "4. Regularization of daily wages appointments on Group 'D' posts.-(1) Any person who- (a) was directly appointed on daily wage basis on a Group 'D' post in the Government service before June 29, 1991 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules; and (b) possessed requisite qualification prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such appointment on daily wage basis under the relevant service rules, shall in considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available in Group 'D' post, on the date of commencement of these rules on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relewmt service rules or orders." 5. Further the said rule has made for consideration before this Court in the case of Janardan Yadav Vs. Further the said rule has made for consideration before this Court in the case of Janardan Yadav Vs. State of U.P., 2008 (1) UPLBEC 498 , and in paragraph 6 it is held as under: - (6) The only requirement under Rule 4(1)(a) are that incumbent was directly appointed on daily wage basis on a Group 'D' post in a Government service before 29.06.1991 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of the said Rules. The further requirement under clause (b) of Rule 4(1) is that he must have possessed requisite qualification required for regular appointment on that post at the time of such employment on daily wage basis." 6. In view of the fact and circumstances the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make fresh representation to the opposite party No.4/ Superintendent, Government Garden, Faizabad within a period of three weeks from the date of receiving certified copy of this order for redressal of his grievances which he has raised in the present writ petition annexing all the relevant documents and materials in support of his case and after receiving the same opposite party No. 4 shall consider and dispose of in accordance with the provisions as provided under U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'D' Posts, 2001, Rule 4(1) within a further period of four weeks thereafter.