- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
(2.) Petitioner, before this Court, seeks quashing of the order passed by the Superintendent Engineer (RES) Circle, Allahabad dated 22.3.2000, wherein regularization offered to the petitioner under the order dated 15.10.1994 has been cancelled after recording a finding that the petitioner's case is not covered by the U.P. Regularization of Ad-Hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Second Amendment Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Amendment Rules, 1989') and therefore, order of regularization dated 15.10.1994 being patently illegal was cancelled. Learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order submits that petitioner was initially appointed on 28.5.1986 for a period of three months, a copy of the appointment letter has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, and thereafter, he was offered appointment under the order dated 27.7.91987 for a period of six months. It is stated that the respondent-authorities considered the claim of the petitioner for regularization under Amendment Rules, 1989 and after obtaining opinion in the mater declared that the period between 1986 to 1987, when the petitioner did not work, be treated as leave without pay and on that basis an order was passed for regularizing the services of the petitioner treating him to have been appointed on ad-hoc basis on 29.5.1986. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that although the present writ petition is completely silent about the claim petition filed by the petitioner before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, but through supplementary affidavit filed in the year 2003, the petitioner has disclosed that he had approached this Court earlier by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24414 of 1989 for regularization. The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 13.12.1989 with a direction upon the petitioner to approach the U.P. Public Service Tribunal. Petitioner, therefore, filed claim petition No. 18/F/III of 1990 before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, wherein an order of status quo was passed on 18.1.1990. While the claim petition was pending and affidavits were exchanged, the petitioner was regularized under order dated 27.7.1994. The petitioner, therefore, made an application for his claim petition being dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly, the claim petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.9.1995/9.8.1995. He therefore, submits the recall of the order of regularization in the facts of the present case is patently unjustified and amounts to negation of the proceedings which were initiated by the petitioner before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have examined the records of the present writ petition. From Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which is the first letter of appointment dated 29.5.1986, issued in favour of the petitioner, it is apparently clear that he was appointed as Clerk/Typist, for a period of three months only on a fixed pay of Rs. 350/- per month with a specific condition that services may be terminated at any point of time. Such appointment of the petitioner, which was time bound and on fixed pay, cannot be treated to be an ad hoc appointment. It is further admitted on record that after expiry of three months from the date of the order dated 29.5.1986 petitioner did not work. After nearly one year, a fresh appointment letter was issued in his favour by the Superintendent Engineer dated 27.5.1987, enclosed as annexure- 2 to the writ petition, wherein he was offered appointment as Junior Clerk for a period of six months only in the pay-scale of Rs. 454-550/-. It was specifically provided under the order that the appointment would take effect from 1.6.1987 and that the petitioner will have no claim in respect of break in service between 1986 to 1987. This order of appointment was accepted by the petitioner with open eyes and without any protest.;