I.S. Mathur, J. - (1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 31-12-1971 (Annexure -3 to the writ petition) terminating his services, end a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to decide his representations dated 10-2-1972 (Annexure-4) and 16-3-1972 (Annexure-5). By a later amendment, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 10-7-1992 (Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit) allegedly ' ejecting petitioners representations against the order of termination. The petitioner has also claimed a writ of mandamus directing the oppose parties to give him the benefit of past services, including arrears of salary, for the period between the date of termination (31-12-1971) and the date of fresh appointment (6-5-1986) and to modify the order dated 6-5-1986 (Annexure-15) accordingly. Writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to fill the post of Head Assistants, Estate Management Officers and Assistant Housing Commissioners is also prayed.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Assistant vide office order dated 15-11-1966 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). He was promoted to the next higher post of Upper Division Assistant in the year 1970 and by order dated 6-8-1971 he was given regular promotion on the post of Upper Division Assistant in the Engineering Section of the Parishad (Vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition). However, by order dated 31-12-1971 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) his services were terminated with effect from the same date, on the ground that they were no longer required. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 10-2-1972 (Aunexure-1 to the petition) against the order of termination to the Housing Commissioner. It. is alleged that as his representation was not decided, he made another representation dated 16-3-1972 (Annexure-5 to the petition) by way of appeal to the Board. This too remained undecided. He then made representations to the Chief Minister and Prime Minister of India on 10-10-1972, 9-10-1973, 28-3-1977, 11-4-1977 and 6-5-1977. In response to the representation made to the Prime Minister of India, a direction was given from Prime Ministers Secretary to the petitioner that he should contact the Chief Secretary to the Government of U.P. Bye letter dated 29-6-1977 he was informed by the Private Secretary to Awas Sachiv, U.P. Government that his matter has been referred to the Commissioner and Secretary, Local Self Government for inquiry. He approached Commissioner and Secretary, Local Self Government, who, according to the petitioner, submitted a favourable report to the State Government through his letter dated 28-6-1977. The Deputy Secretary to the State Government in his letter dated 7-9-1977 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) addressed to the Housing Commissioner U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Prishad, Lucknow, stated that, the records and the fact that the petitioner was given promotion after five years, indicated that the petitioners work and conduct has been satisfactory and the termination of his service was not proper. It was also indicated in this letter that the petitioner may be reinstated in service after obtaining a written consent from him that it would be a fresh appointment and he would not claim any benefit of past service. By Office Memorandum dated 20-9-1977 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), issued by the Housing Commissioner and Secretary, the petitioner was ordered to be appointed as upper Division Assistant but it was stipulated in the said Office Memorandum that the petitioner should give his consent in writing that the appointment would be a fresh appointment and he would not claim the benefit of the past service rendered by him in the Parishad. It was also indicated in this order that if such a written consent was given by the petitioner a. formal order of appointment would be issued. Oc receipt of this order, dated 20-9-1977, the petitioner made another representation dated 7-10-1977 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) stating that he had not requested for a fresh appointment and unless he is informed by the Government of the decision taken by them on his petition, made to the Prime Minister, he would not be in a position to reply to the Memo. The petitioner then received a letter, dated 30-9-1977, from the Chief Secretary to the U.P., Government, asking him to contact the Secretary, Housing Board U.P. in connection with his petition, dated 6-5-1977, addressed to Hon'ble Sri Morarji Desai, the then Prime Minister of India. The petitioner contacted the said Secretary but he was not informed of nay decision by the Government. He, therefore, submitted another representation dated 9-10-1977 to the Chief Secretary. The petitioner then submitted a representation, dated 21-1-1978, to the Minister, Local Self Government and on receiving no response he submitted another representation, dated 15-6-1978 (Annexure-9), to the Chief Minister One Kharpat Ram, M.L.A., then wrote a letter dated 18-9-1984 (Annexure-10) to the then Minister for Local Self Government U.P., in this regard and the said Minister directed the Housing Commissioner to issue orders for appointment of the petitioner giving him benefit of his pest services. By letter dated 24-6-1985 (Annexure-11 to the petition), the Joint Housing Commissioner and Secretary of the Parishad informed the petitioner that it has not been found reasible to accord any benefits to the petitioner in addition to those mentioned in the G.O. dated 7-9-1977, he was required to give him in writing that he was agreeable to a fresh appointment and would not claim the benefit of past services. It was also stated that after receipt of which an undertaking from the petitioner a decision to re-appoint the petitioner as an Upper Division Assistant/Assistant Grade I would be considered The petitioner again submitted a detailed representation dated 28-9-1985 (Annexure-12 to the.writ petition), inter alia reiterating his earlier stand and also Indicating that one Sri Ramesh Chandra Verma, who was a temporary employee in the Rural Development Department, was given benefit of past services in similar circumstances. His representation was placed before the Board in the meeting held on 8-1 1- 985, as item No. 58. but no decision was taken on that date or in the next meeting held on 29-1-1986 and it was resolved that Housing Commissioner should take a decision. Finding that no decision is being taken in bis matter, the petitioner submitted his joining report (Annexure-13) to the writ petition on 3-5-1986. It is alleged by the petitioner that be gave the joining report due to adverse circumstances and financial constraints it was for this reason that he had no option but to accept the conditions but at the came time he requested that he may be granted continuity in service, seniority and other consequential benefits. He hag not permitted to resume his duties on. the basis of (he joining report dated 3-5-1986 and be was asked to sign a typed draft which bad been prepared by the Administrative Department of the Parishad. He signed that draft (Annexurs-14 to the petition) on 6-5-1986 Thereafter an office order dated 6-5-1985 (Annexure-3 5) was issued appointing him afresh and he is now continuing on the post of Uppar Division Assistant in the Parishad.
(3.) However, be again submitted a representation dated 5-11-1986 (Annexure-16 to the petition) requesting redressal of his grievance in regard to past service, seniority and arrears of salary. This representation was forwarded by the Addl. Housing Commissioner with this DO, dated 20-12-J.S86 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) along with a copy of the letter dated 12-11-1986 containing the recommendations of Sri M.K. Agnihotri, Senior Finance end Accounts Officer, who was the immediate superior of the petitioner. In this letter, dated 12-11-1986, Sri Agnihotri commanded the work of the petitioner as of a high order. The petitioner again made representation dated 23-6-1987 (Annexure-18 to the petition) to the Housing Commissioner reiterating the facts and making the same request as before, and drawing his attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1986 (3) SLR 32. It Is claimed that Additional Housing Commissioner made a favourable recommendation but. no response has been received in regard thereto.;