- (1.) Heard Ms. Pratima Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. Facts, in brief, of the present case are that the petitioner, Sri Mukesh worked on the post of Beldar as a daily wager for the period from 1989 to 1991. Thereafter his services were retrenched. Subsequently, the petitioner and some other similarly situated persons working on the post of Beldar/Helper in Uttar Pradesh Rajya Setu Nigam, whose services were retrenched, have approached the respondents to consider their case for giving appointment by making representation dated 18.10.1993 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition).
(2.) It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter nothing has been done in the matter in question inspite of the repeated requests and reminders in this regard to the authorities concerned, as such the father of the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.9.1994 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) to the concerned Minister, raising the grievance to consider his case for reappointment in the department as he belongs to the reserved category and his services were retrenched from the department. In pursuance to the same, a letter dated 11.11.1994 on behalf of the Minister concerned has been written to opposite party No. 4/Deputy Project Manager, Nirman Ekai Unit, U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam, Etawah. In response to the same, the official respondents/opposite party No. 4 of the Nigam informed the Minister concerned that as per documents on record, the petitioner Sri Mukesh by his own act, has left the job.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even thereafter the petitioner represented before the opposite parties for consideration of his case for reappointment but no heed has been paid in the matter in question, hence the present writ petition has been filed raising his grievance.;