- (1.) Heard Sri Pankaj Srivastava for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. As requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties, I have proceeded to hear and decide it, under the Rules of the Court, at this stage.
(2.) Though there are several reliefs sought in this writ petition but in effect, petitioner's claim is three fold: (i) regularisation on a group 'D' post in Forest Department (ii) payment of salary at minimum of regular pay scale so long he is not regularised as per the decision in State of U.P. Vs. Putti Lal, 2002 2 UPLBEC 1595 and (iii) not to be terminated orally or otherwise.
(3.) Besides above, there is an additional issue in this matter. The petitioner has assailed an order dated 24.06.2011 (Annexure 16 to writ petition), which is a letter issued by Principal Conservator of Forest (Administration), U.P., Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the "PCF (Admn.)") to the Principal Conservator, (Wildlife), U.P., Lucknow and all Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P. stating that not only vacancies newly created as supernumerary, by Government Order dated 23.06.2011, ought to be utilized for regularisation of employees in Group 'D' post under U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wage Appointments on Group 'D' posts Rules 2001 (hereinafter referred to as " Rules 2001") and on Group 'C' posts, under U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'C' Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 1998") and all those daily wage employees who are working since 29th June 1991 are to be regularised but if any vacancy has occurred due to retirement etc., and, are existing, the same would also be utilised for such regularisation. Thus validity of this order dated 24.06.2011 is to be tested in the light of Rules, 2001 and 1998.;