S.N. Srivastava, J. - (1.) NARENDRA Dev University of Agriculture and Technology, Faizabad, came into being under the U.P. Agriculture University Act, 1958. This University was established as an inter -face with the avowed object of co -ordinating teaching, research and extension programme in different disciplines of agricultural science.
(2.) THE Petitioner in the instant petition was initially engaged as Laboratory Attendant -a post in class IV cadre -in the year 1980 and continued to discharge his duties unabatedly and unhampered by any break. By means of the present petition, he has sought the relief of mandamus to the Respondents to regularise his services on the post and also the salary in the regular pay scale attended with consequential benefits. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner canvassed that this Court was seized of similar matter at issue in Writ Petition No. 3664 (S/S) of 2002 and Writ Petition No. 5219 (S/S) of 1999. The aforesaid matter culminated in decision in the aforestated writ petition vide judgment/order dated 16.4.2002, embodying the direction to the university authorities to frame a scheme for regularization of class III and IV employees working on daily wage basis in a phased manner within four months for being submitted to the State Government which will consider and converge to a decision for regularization of Petitioners. The decision, proceeds the submission, further encapsulates direction that till the services of the Petitioners are regularized, the university authorities would not make any fresh appointment on regular basis either on class III or on class IV posts and pay the salary at the minimum of pay scale of the respective posts. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Petitioner too is entitled to the extended benefit on the lines of the benefits flowing from the judgment rendered in the aforestated petitions. As stated supra, the Petitioner in the instant case, entered the service of the university in the year 1980 as Lab. Attendant and ever since then much water has flowed down the bridge but the fate of the Petitioner remained stuck in the still water of indifference of the university authorities. Having cantered into the year 2002 with no noticeable action on the part of university authorities, it seems to me that forbearance of the Petitioner reached the boiling point and it led him to prefer the instant petition for the reliefs claimed in the relief column of this petition.
(3.) I have heard Sri N. K. Seth appearing for university qua the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Learned standing counsel did not repudiate the ratio decidendi flowing from the decisions aforecited. It brooks no dispute that under the U.P. Agriculture University Act, 1958, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur and Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology as well as Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology were established to bring about coordination and development of teaching, research and extension programme in agriculture sciences. The matter forced itself on consideration for the first time, in Writ Petition No. 7942 of 1994, Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogic Dainik Wetan Bhogi Karmchari Sangathan and Ors. v. Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur, and this Court had directed for framing of a scheme for regularization attended with a further direction to pay salary at the minimum of pay scale, to class III and class IV employees till regularization scheme is finalised and enforced. Chandra Shekhar Azad Agriculture and Technology University, Kanpur, preferred special appeal, vide Special Appeal No. 561 of 2000 against the judgment and order dated 10.5.2001 which ended up in dismissal. Thereafter, the matter was taken to the Apex Court by Chandra Shekhar Azad Agriculture and Technology University, Kanpur as well as the State of U.P. in Special Leave Petitions, which were assigned S.L.P. (C) No. 14624 of 2001 and S.L.P. (C) No. 15035 of 2001. In the aforesaid two special leave petitions, the Apex Court issued limited notice for being addressed on the question raised before it "whether a daily -wager, on being directed to be paid at the minimum at the scale of pay would also be entitled to the dearness allowance." The Apex Court noticed the decisions of the Court in Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. : 1986 (1) SCC 637, Surinder Singh v. Engineer -in -Chief, C.P.W.D. : 1988 (1) AWC 414 (SC): 1986 (1) SCC 639, U.P.I.T. Deptt. Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Assn. v. Union of India : 1987 Supp SCC 658 and Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India, : (1988) 1 SCC 122, to bolster the contention that dearness allowance should also be payable to a daily wager. On the contention raised in the S.L.P. aforestated that while granting relief of dearness allowance, the financial burden on the State should also be looked into, the Apex Court observed that in support of the contention, the learned Counsel appearing for the university placed reliance on the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh : 1997 (1) AWC 2145 : 1996 (11) SCC 77 and Daily R.C. Labour, P. and T. Deptt. v. Union of India : AIR 1987 SC 2342. The Apex Court ruled that having examined the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel, the decisions are of no application to the point in issue. The order passed in the aforesaid decision is excerpted below for ready reference. "In view of the limited notice that had been issued in this case, the question for our consideration is whether a daily -wager, on being directed to be paid at the minimum at the scale of pay would also be entitled to the dearness allowance. The judgment of this Court in Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. : 1986 (1) SCC 637, Surinder Singh v. Engineer -in -Chief, C.P.W.D., 1988 (1) AWC 414 (SC): : 1986 (1) SCC 639 U.P.I.T. Deptt Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Assn. v. Union of India : 1987 Supp SCC 658 and Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India, : 1988 (1) SCC 122, support the contention that dearness allowance should also be payable to a daily wager. Mr. Pramod Swarup, learned Counsel appearing for the university, however, says that while granting relief of dearness allowance, the financial burden on the State should also be looked into and in support of the same, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, : 1997 (1) AWC 2145 : 1996 (11) SCC 77, and Daily R. C. Labour, P. and T. Deptt. v. Union of India : AIR 1987 SC 2342. Having examined the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel, we are of the view that these decisions are of no application to the point in issue. We, therefore, see no infirmity with the judgment requiring our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petition accordingly stand dismissed.";