- (1.) HEARD Sri D.P. Tripathi, Advocate, holding brief of Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Neeraj Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent and Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.
(2.) PETITIONER, Dharmendra Singh, by means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has sought writ of certiorari quashing order dated 22.12.2008 (Annexure 20 to writ petition) rejecting his request for regularization and has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to reinstate him in service on the parity of petitioners of Writ Petition No. 7942 of 1994 decided on 24.4.2000 and to regularize him within such time as determined by this Court. Facts giving rise to present dispute are as under. Petitioner was engaged as Skilled Labour on Daily Wage on 10.12.1991 in Chandra Shekhar Agriculture and Technology University (hereinafter referred to as "University"). It is said that though he was engaged in 1991 and continuously discharged his duties as daily wage employee in support whereof a certificate dated 29.4.2000 has been filed as Annexure 1 to writ petition but his wages have not been paid since August' 2006. He filed writ petition no. 25755 of 2002 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 17.10.2006 with the following order: "Sri Prakash Padia, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent University submits that the legal position has undergone a sea change specifically in view of the judgment of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) others reported in 2006 (4) SCC page 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 18198 of 2000 Krishna Prakash Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 4-4-2005 and Writ Petition No. 46546 of 2002 Dikar Deo and others Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 7-4-2005 and submits that the petitioners are also entitled for regularization of their services. Elaborating his arguments it was submitted that the petitioners are working without help of any interim order of this Court and in view of the observations made by Apex Court in para 53 in the case of Uma Devi and others (supra), their case for regularization is to be considered by the respondents in accordance with the relevant rules. In the opinion of the Court, the issue raised on behalf of the parties requires consideration by the Vice Chancellor of the University itself as the first instance. It is therefore provided that the petitioner may make a representation within two weeks from today, along with certified copy of this order, seeking parity with the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 7942 of 1994, decided on 24-4-2000. On such representation being made, the Vice Chancellor shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law and shall pass a reasoned speaking order, preferably within 8 weeks from the date representation is so filed. With the aforesaid directions/ observations the present writ petition is disposed of finally."
(3.) PETITIONER's claim was rejected by order dated 8.1.2007 (Annexure 16 to writ petition) whereagainst he again filed writ petition no 13138 of 2007 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 25.9.2008 copy of the said judgment is Annexure 17 to writ petition and it would show that it is verbatim reproduction of judgment dated 17.10.2006 in the earlier writ petition of present petitioner no. 25755 of 2002. It appears that petitioner's counsel did not bring to the notice of this Court that with the same direction petitioner's earlier writ petition has already been decided whereafter the order dated 8.1.2007 was passed. The impugned order in the present case has been passed pursuant to the direction issued by this Court second time i.e. in second writ petition of the this petitioner. The fact remains that the order dated 8.1.2007 passed by the competent authority pursuant to judgment dated 17.10.2006 has not been touched and the same has attained finality. Respondents have passed the order impugned in the writ petition which also reiterate the facts and decision of the respondents as mentioned in the order dated 8.1.2007. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has been denied benefit of judgment of this Court in several other cases in which direction for payment of minimum of regular pay scale and regularization were issued, hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.;