Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS petition is directed against alleged oral termination of services of the petitioner from the post of Driver in the officer of the Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Ranipur Block, district Mau. Brief facts of the case, as averred in the writ petition, are, that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver in Bal Vikas Pariyojna Department, Azamgarh, vide order dated 21.4.1989 in a clear vacancy caused by transfer of erstwhile Jeep Driver of Pariyojna Office, Ranipur. The appointment of the petitioner was on daily wages and it is alleged that he was paid salary upto May, 1994 and thereafter payment of salary was stopped. The contention of the petitioner is that he has worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year and is entitled to be regularised in pursuance of the letter dated 22.7.1992 issued by the Government. In this regard, he had filed Writ Petition No. 33291 of 1992, Ram Sakal Yadav v. Director, Bal Vikas and Pushtahar, U. P. Lucknow and others. The writ petition was decided by this Court, vide order dated 18.9.1992. This writ and petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No. 2 regarding regularisation of his service. Respondent No. 2 was directed to decide the said representation within six weeks from the date of making of the representation by the petitioner. It was further observed that if there are sanctioned funds and if the posts are available then appropriate orders be passed. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of this Court, after inter department communications, the petitioner was directed to appear in driving test on 29.9.1994 and written test on 29.10.1994. The petitioner submits that some other persons were appointed in the department but he has not been allowed to sign the Attendance Register or the Log Book and his salary was also not paid since January, 1994, which amounts to oral termination. He further contends that there is a Government order dated 13.4.1992 providing for regularisation of the employees working in different local bodies, having completed three years continuous service with 240 days in a calendar year. This Government order, according to the petitioner, further provides that such persons should not be removed or dismissed from service who are working on 11.10.1989 if they had not completed three years but would be allowed to continue and absorbed in service whenever the vacancy arises.
(3.) IN the counter-affidavit, the case of the respondents is that the petitioner has never, actually and continuously worked for 240 days as alleged by him. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not worked with effect from May, 1994 and in fact he had not come on the duty, being a temporary employee. He has been paid for the job till he had actually worked. It is stated that the date mentioned in Annexure-3 to the writ petition is wrong and a typographical error. It is further stated that the Government order does not give any benefit to the daily wage employees. IN paragraph 19 of the counter-affidavit, it has been averred that the petitioner has been absconding with the key of the vehicle since May, 1994 and the vehicle is standing in the office being out of order. The standing counsel further contends that there are no rules for regularisation of Jeep Drivers applicable to the department and as such in order to comply with the directions of this Court for considering the petitioner for regularisation, a written test and interview was held in which the petitioner appeared and failed, hence he was not regularised. Thus, the representation of the petitioner was decided on 7.10.1996. The delay in deciding the representation of the petitioner was due to inter departmental communications as there were no rules for regularisation of the services of the Jeep Driver and the order of this Court had to be complied with.;