- (1.) Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Meenakshi Singh who appears for the respondents.
(2.) The instant petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:- "A writ order or directions in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 08.11.2002 passed by respondent no.2 to the extent it directs regularization of the petitioner w.e.f. 04.10.1994 filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition as well as order dated 14.08.2013 passed by respondent no.2 filed as Annexure-17 to the writ petition. A writ order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant annual increment w.e.f. 04.10.1994 as well as arrears of salary to petitioner treating him to be regular on Class III w.e.f. 04.10.1994 within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court."
(3.) The first relief is in respect of an order passed by the respondents bringing to an end the period of probation on which the petitioner had continued and confirming him on the Class-III post to which he had been promoted. The relief itself is claimed on the ground that since the petitioner had been promoted initially on 28 September 1993 and had joined on 04 October 1993, he should be treated as having been confirmed in service upon completion of one year from the date of initial appointment in light of the provisions made in Rule 20, 21 and 22 of the U.P. Agricultural Produce Market Committees (Centralised) Services Regulations 19841. The order of 14 August 2013 has come to be passed negativing the claim of the petitioner for grant of pay increments which too were based on an identical contention of a deemed confirmation of the petitioner and consequent to completion of his probationary period on the Class III post. The respondents in terms of the impugned order of 14 August 2013 have taken the position that since the probation period of the petitioner was brought to an end by the order of 08 November 2002 whereafter he stood confirmed, his appointment on the Class-III post could not relate back to the original date of appointment. They have also taken into consideration the fact that although the petitioner had joined on 04 October 1993 and was stated to have suffered an accident on 23 May 1994 as a consequence of which some of his fingers came to be amputated, since this fact was brought to the attention of the respondents only in 1998 no relief was liable to be accorded.;