BRAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was appointed as a Clerk on a temporary basis for a period of three months in the District Supply Office, Allahabad, has filed this petition for a direction upon the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Clerk. The petitioner has placed on record the order dated 10th February, 1984 passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad by which the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the District Supply Office, Allahabad in place of Gulab Singh in the pay scale of Rs. 354-550. The order mentions that the appointment: of the petitioner was purely temporary in nature for a period of three months or till a regularly selected candidate was appointed and that it could be terminated at any time without notice. It was also provided in the order that the petitioner shall stand attached to the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad from the day he joins the District Supply Office and his salary shall be drawn from the District Supply Office, Allahabad.

(2.) The petitioner continued to work on the basis of the aforesaid order and submitted various representations before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, the District Supply Officer, Allahabad and the Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad for regularisation and confirmation of his services. Papers were sent on 7th November, 2005 to the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Lucknow who by his letter dated 28th April, 2009 sought information from the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad about the services of the petitioner and though the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad sent the required information but still no decision was taken. It is further stated that Sri Nawab Alam working in the District Supply Office, Fatehpur, Sri Sitaram working in the Rent Control and Eviction Office, Allahabad, Sri Dilip Sonkar working at Kaushambi and Sri Asfaq Ahmad who are junior to the petitioner have been regularised.

(3.) The petitioner claims regularisation in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Out Side the Purview of the Public Service Commission), Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the '1979 Regularisation Rules') as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Out Side the Purview of the Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001 which substitutes the earlier Rule 4(1). The amended Rule 4(1) is quoted below :