Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri K.R. Singh, Learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party.
(2.) AFTER hearing at length an order was passed on 21.5.2010 directing the standing Counsel to produce the relevant records as mentioned in the said order. The photostat copy of the record which has been made available today are not inconsonance with the directions contained in the order dated 21.5.2010, as such the Court is not satisfied with the records produced by the opposite parties. The relevant facts relating to filing of the present contempt application are that the applicant was appointed as a part time Medical Officer, Ayurvedic in the plain cadre of the State of U.P. sometimes in the year 1988. Large scale similar appointments were made at that time as there was demand of Medical Officers and the regular selections were not taking place. Subsequently, in the year 1991 -92 the Government took a decision to convert the part time appointment of the Medical Officers into ad hoc appointment. Pursuant to the said decision of the Government, large number of part time Medical Officers, Ayurvedic in the cadre of the applicant were given ad hoc appointment. The applicant was not given ad hoc appointment at that time. When the applicant agitated the matter, the Government took a stand that as the applicant was not working with the department on the cut of date as mentioned in the Government Order of 1991 -92, she could not be given ad hoc status. The said decision of the State Government was challenged before this Court by the applicant by way of Writ Petition No. 20739 of 2007. After exchange of affidavits, a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 24.8.2009 held that the decision of the Government that the applicant was not working, was erroneous. This finding was based upon the material placed before the Court by the applicant to which no evidence in rebuttal was filed by the State.
(3.) IN the meantime the ad hoc appointees of the cadre of the applicant had been regularised pursuant to the Third Amendment of 1979 Regularisation Rules. Before the Writ Court the statement was made on behalf of the State that the applicant would be considered for regularisation as and when posts are available in future, as according to them at that time posts of Medical Officers Ayurvedic in the regular cadre were not available. The relevant extract from the judgment dated 24.8.2009 is quoted herein under: The representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the State Government by its impugned order dated 21.4.2006. One of the findings recorded is that the petitioner did not furnish proof of her working from 17.8.1990 to 27.11.1998. The petitioner has filed proof of her working since 1990 in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit. According to the petitioner she has been paid salary from November 20, 1990 to 31.1.1993. Photo copies of the order of the Administrative Officer dated 17.3.1993 has been filed as Annexure -1 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit. The order of the Administrative Officer dated 31.3.1995 to prove that the petitioner has been paid salary from February 1993 to September 1994 has been filed as Annexure SRA 2. The petitioner was working as part time Medical Officer and in proof a copy of the transfer order dated 28.10.1994 has been filed as Annexure SRA.3. Copy of the attendance sheet/register from 1990 to 1998 has been filed as Annexure S.R.A.4. These papers have not been considered in the impugned order by the State government. In view of the material filed by the petitioner in proof of her working and in view of the concession made by the learned standing Counsel that the petitioner had worked on daily wage basis we are of the view that the finding in the impugned order that the petitioner has failed to prove the factum of her working is erroneous. However, another reason given in the impugned order for non regularisation of the petitioner is that there is no sanctioned post and that the petitioner would be considered for regularisation when a sanctioned post is available. The petitioner has not filed any material to rebut this finding. It is stated in the impugned order itself that the petitioner would be considered for regularisation when posts are available. In view of the material filed by the petitioner in proof of her working we are of the view that the finding in the impugned order that the petitioner has failed to prove the factum of her working is erroneous. The finding of the State Government that the petitioner has not worked since 1990 cannot be sustained. In the circumstances we dispose of the writ petition with the direction that the petitioner's case may be considered for regularisation when regular posts are available.;