- (1.) BY the Court.This appeal on behalf of the authorities of the U.P. Power Corporation has been filed praying for setting aside the order of a learned Single Judge dated 24/5/2010 in Writ Petition No. 10207 of 2003 on several grounds to be discussed hereinafter in relation to a Class-IV employee of the Corporation, who has been extended the benefit of regularization since 1977 and all consequential benefits have been extended while imposing a cost of Rs.50,000.00 on the appellants.
(2.) SRI M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has been heard at length and SRI Yogesh Agrawal for the sole respondent-petitioner and we have perused the records as also the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants as directed by us earlier. The respondent-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) filed the writ petition giving rise to this appeal alleging that the appellants-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) had engaged the petitioner as a daily wage muster-roll employee and thereafter was also engaged as a seasonal water man for a period of six months intermittently. Thereafter he was given an appointment as a gardener {MALI) under the order dated 6.3.1991 issued by the Executive Engineer but salary was not paid to him. Consequently, he made a representation and then he filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 39802 of 2001, which was disposed of on 3.12.2001 with a direction to the Executive Engineer to dispose of the same within a period of two months on merits. The said representation was rejected vide order dated 10/9/2002 and upon examination, it was found that the alleged letter of appointment as a gardener, which is dated 6/3/1991, was never issued to the petitioner as it was subject to approval of the higher authority of Chief Engineer as at that point of time, there was a ban on appointments. Petitioner's claim that he joined w.e.f. 20/11/1992 was also rejected on the ground that since there was no appointment in favour of the petitioner, therefore, there was no occasion for him to join as a gardener. It was also indicated in the rejection order that the petitioner had been engaged as a seasonal water man for a period of 6 months for which payments had been made between 1/4/1991 to 30/9/1991. The claim of the petitioner, therefore, that he was appointed on regular basis on 6.3.1991 did not arise nor he was paid any amount as a regular employee.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order dated 10.9.2002, the challenge was raised by the petitioner praying for quashing of the said order dated 10.9.2002 and secondly for a consequential relief for payment of current and regular salary as a gardener (MALI) w.e.f. 20.11.1992 keeping in view the letter of appointment dated 6.3.1991. The third relief claimed for by the petitioner was for awarding 18% interest per annum upon the entire arrears of salary and to issue any other writ or order that may be necessary on the facts of the case. The appellants filed a counter affidavit contesting the said position and reiterating that the alleged letter of appointment dated 6.3.1991 by which the petitioner was claiming regular engagement, was a draft appointment letter and the same was a mere recommendation subject to approval of the higher authority, which was never issued. It was categorically stated in the counter affidavit that the Chief Engineer did not grant any such approval to whom the said letter of appointment was forwarded for approval and hence the claim for regular appointment was without any basis.;