- (1.) BY the Court.- The writ petition is directed against the order dated 3rd June, 1949 passed by the Secretary, Environment Department, Lucknow, by means of which the petitioner was to remain in the service of the U. P. Pollution Control Board on contract till 3rd June, 1989 in pursuance of the judgment of this Court dated 17-5-1989 in Writ Petition No. 2070 of 1988, Surendra Singh v. State of U. P. The petitioner prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to regularise his services with all benefits and privileges. It was further prayed that the order dated 3-6-1989 contained in Annexure No. 1 be quashed.
(2.) THE petitioner, who was earlier in the employment of the U. P. Development System Corporation, Lucknow as Member-Manager, Consultancy (Project, Planning and Project Management) applied for the post of Member- Secretary, U. P. Pollution Control Board on which he was duly selected and thereafter the State Government vide order dated 4-12-1984 appointed him for a period of six months temporally with the stipulation that the said services shall come to an end on regularisation, or selection of any person to the post or even prior to that, on giving one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof. THE appointment was made, in exercise of powers under Section 5 of Sub-section (2) (F) of the Air (Prevention Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Before expiry of the said period of six months, the term of the petitioner was extended in exercise of the powers vested in the Government in continuance of his previous appointment for a period of one year on contract. It was further provided that on his giving consent to appointment on contract, the Government would settle the terms and conditions of contract. THE petitioner, it appears, never gave his consent in writing nor was he asked to do so. After his initial appointment for six months, the petitioner moved an application about four months thereafter and again after some five months he again moved an application for regularisation followed by yet another application after the expiry of one year of his continuous appointment. After expiry of this one year period, which came to an end on 2nd June, 1986 the petitioner continued to work and some three months thereafter vide order dated 2th August, 1986, purporting it to be in continuation of previous appointment, the said appointment on contract was extended for three years with retrespsctive effect, viz. with effect from 4th June, 1986. It was provided that during this period he would be governed by Government Servant Rules and all the Government Orders and after his consent for the said appointment, the terms of contract would be settled. It appears that on the petitioner's application for regularisation dated 29-3-1985 a note was put before the Secretary, Environment Department. Even before it, it appears, in January 1985 before expiry of initial appointment of six months, the file was in movement and the matter was also referred to the Chief Minister and it was decided to appoint him on contract for one year. After the expiry of period of one year, the file was again in movement and in the month of August, 1986 and the Chief Minister vide order dated 27-8-1986 directed for extension of his appointment on contract for three years with the provision that after getting consent of this contractual appointment, terms of the contract will be decided by the State Government. Till then there was a Single State Board under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the order dated 29-8-1986 referred to above, was also sent to the Chairman of the U. P. Development System Corporation, Lucknow and also to the Managing Director, U. P. Development System Corporation, Lucknow. When the petitioner joined the U. P. Pollution Control Board, he was allowed and granted six months leave without pay to join a fresh appointment. Again the petitioner was granted six month's leave without pay by his previous employee with the condition that in no case this six months period of leav6 will be extended on expiry of the same and the petitioner will automatically cease to be an employee of the Corporation. When his services were again extended for a period of one year in the U. P. Pollution Control Board, as stated above, the petitioner applied for extension of his leave without pay for a period of one year which was granted with the clear stipulation that in no case this one year leave will be extended and no expiry of the same, the petitioner will automatically cease to be an employee of the Corporation. It was thereafter that the previous employer vide letter .dated 5/8 July, 1986 informed the petitioner that he was no more an employee of the Corporation with effect from forenoon of 12th June, 1986. The petitioner again sent a letter for extension of leave without pay till he was in service with the U. P. Pollution Control Board, but the said application was rejected on the ground that he was no more an employee of the Corporation, and, as such, there was no question of granting leave to him. In his application for regularisation, the petitioner stated that he is in continuous service of the U. P. Pollution Control Board and he has no lien in his parent department. On the petitioner's application dated 29-3-1985 for considering his claim for regularisation before the Secretary, Science and Environment Department, U. P. Lucknow, a note was, made appreciating his services and contributions. Thereafter the Deputy Secretary made a detailed note appreciating his service and various successes attained during his tenure and the petitioner's act in bringing to the notice of the State Government various financial and administrative irregularities committed by Sri P. C. Tyagi, President, Pollution Control Board and his efforts for removing the ""same was appreciated He too recommended that his services may be regularised and that the concurrence of the Chief Minister may be obtained. The Special Secretary of the department also in his note appreciated the services of the petitioner and stated that it was not desirable to have a person from outside on deputation on the post of Member-Secretary but the Reviewing Officer, viz. Secretary, Ministry of Environment has" disagreed with the entry given by the Reporting Officer and has rated him as a 'first class Officer'. The Chief Minister's concurrence for six months was obtained on 31-3-1983. On 18-8-1986, the Joint Secretary of the Department, after submitting his report, looked into the matter and recommended that the petitioner's term may be extended on contract. It is, thereafter in view of his capability and services, his term was extended for a period of three years on contract as ordered by the Chief Minister. It appears that on the basis of complaints of some M.Ps. one of whom later on denied it, the Secretary of the Department on 13-4-1987 submitted a note before the Chief Minister, who directed that work from the petitioner may not be taken as his association with the department may create difficulties and with immediate effect he may be appointed in the Environment Department. It appears that his proposal was concurred by the Chief Minister and thereafter he was sent to the Environment Department and a few days thereafter his services were terminated, though on the ground of certain lapses resulting in death of thousands of fishes in river Gomti because of pollution against which he filed a writ petition, referred to earlier, which was allowed. The termination order was quashed and it was provided that the petitioner will be deemed to be continuing in service till he continues to hold the post in accordance with law. Initially the appointment of the petitioner was for a period of six months with an indication of its being regularised and was extended for a period of one year with some variation in its language and after expiry of said period, the appointment was not extended with the result that extension for a period of one year came to an end. The petitioner was sent to Holland for training and thereafter he came back to India and resumed his duties and during this period he was paid his salary regularly. The fixed term appointment having come to an end after extension of period of one year, the petitioner's appointment became an appointment for an definite period.
(3.) SOME two and a half months thereafter without disposing of the petitioner's application for regularisation for which hopes were given to him even in the initial appointment letter, the State Government vide its letter dated 3rd June, 1986 appointed him for a period of three years on one stretch treating it to be an appointment with retrospective effect, i.e. from the date when his previous appointment come to an end and thereby including the period when the petitioner's appointment was not for any particular term. The unilateral appointment for a further period of three years, though not in continuation of previous one yet including the period during which the petitioner's services were continuing without break and without any period fixed for the same. The continuity in the appointment of petitioner after expiry of period of one year not being irregular, there was no question of its regularisation. If the same period is ignored and appointment for three years in not to be taken with retrospective effect, the period of three years then would come to end in August, 1989 and the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated or put to an end to on 3rd June, 1989 on the ground that three years' period> has come to an end on that date. But no specific plea in this behalf has been taken in the instant writ petition and no relief has been claimed, and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to claim relief on this score. No formal contract was entered into between the parties and twice it was, though unilaterally, extended without even taking his consent. The terms of the contract were never settled and services rules were not framed and the employee was made to understand that for all practical purposes, he was a Government Servant and was entitled to all privileges and facilities of Government Servants. The State Government even treated him to be a Government servant by transferring him from the U. P. Pollution Control Board to the Environment Department where he worked as a Government Servant, whereafter his services were terminated, which action has been held by a Division Bench of this Court to be by way of punishment and the termination order was quashed and the petitioner's transfer by the State Government was also held to be illegal, by transferring the petitioner in the office of the State Government and not taking him on deputation, the State Government itself put an end to the unilateral appointment of the petitioner for a period of three years and not only treated, but accepted the petitioner as a Government Servant. The transfer was held to be invalid by the Court in the previous writ petition, but the State Government can not claim benefit of its own wrong having been held as a such that the earlier unilateral appointment for three years in continuity thereafter was revived and would automatically come to an end after expiry of three years from retrospective effect, that is, the date in the appointment letter.;