Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain, J. - (1.) Heard Sri M.A. Faridi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dheeraj Raj Singh holding brief of Sri Vivek Raj Singh appearing for the newly added opposite party No. 2.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that his father was working as class IV employee with the opposite party No. 4. He had died in harness on 28.12.1996. The petitioner applied in his place to be appointed under the Dying in Harness Rule and was given appointment on 11.1.1997. Although the petitioner should have been given regular appointment but the opposite parties appointed him as daily wager. Later on, on 23.9.2000 the services of the petitioner were terminated by the opposite party No. 4.
(3.) The petitioner filed writ petition No. 6517 (SS) 2000, which was disposed of with the direction to opposite party No. 1 to finalize the appeal, which was pending with the opposite parties. The appeal was pending before the Chancellor under Section 68 of the Universities Act. The Chancellor's decision on appeal came on 20.6.2001. The order passed by the Chancellor has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said order clearly indicates that the Chancellor was of categorical opinion that services of the petitioner was wrongly terminated, because his case fell in separate category while others who were terminated belonged to the category where irregular appointment was made. The petitioner was appointed under the Dying in Harness Rules. Therefore, the Chancellor exonerated him from the purview of general order of termination while giving categorical observation that the case of the petitioner was of different category. The Chancellor directed the then opposite parties Chandrashekhar Azad Agriculture and Technology University, Kanpur, to comply their own orders. The Chancellor's order is to the effect that since the University authorities had, themselves, redressed the grievance of the petitioner and since they had passed the favourable orders, hence the matter is being dropped at the level of the Chancellor. The petitioner getting the order from the highest authority in the educational field i.e. Chancellor of the Universities was sure to get justice at the university level. It is precise case of the petitioner that since then, despite the order of the Chancellor, he is running from pillar to post and the opposite parties are not paying any heed.;