Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) MATHURA Vrindavan Development Authority was constituted on 25.3.1977 under Section 4 of the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. It has undertaken various housing and commercial projects and as such required the services of a large number of employees in connection with construction and supervision work. The petitioner having Diploma in Civil Engineering applied and was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Development Authority) on daily wages by its Chairman on 15.3.1996. The State Government vide G.O. dated 8.11.1996 banned fresh appointments and directed the development authorities to continue with the daily wage/work charge employees until they are regularized on the post created in future. All the development authorities were also required to send a list of daily wage/work charge employees in this regard. The Secretary of Development Authority sent a list of 45 persons including the name of the petitioner. In 1997 an area of 45 Kms. was added to the area of the Development Authority by including Kosi Kalan Nagar Palika, three Kshetriya Parishads of Chhata, Chanhe, Nandgaon and 49 other villages. A resolution was passed by the Development Authority to sanction 5 additional posts of Junior Engineers.
(3.) IT is submitted that later on the Development Authority could not pay the salaries of some work charged/daily wage employees including the petitioner. However, they continued to take work from them. The petitioner and such other daily wage/work charged employees submitted a representation dated 8.6.1998 to the Vice-Chairman of the Development Authority. Consequently they were stopped from work w.e.f. 28.8.1998 and they were also not paid their wages w.e.f. 1.4.1998. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 34027 of 1998 which was finally disposed of vide judgment and order dated 26.10.1998, the operative portion of which is reproduced as under : "This submission in my opinion is constitutionally sound and in tune with the rule of law. The respondents are supposed to adhere to the rule of law which necessarily implies absence of arbitrariness. In the circumstances of the case, thereof, it is provided that so long the work is available the petitioner shall not be replaced by another daily rated Junior Engineer/ Supervisor except on valid grounds. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that albeit the petitioner has been seized with effect from 28.8.1998, but in view of the resolution dated 31.3.1998 passed by the respondents, they may be directed to take work from the petitioner at least on daily wage basis. I am afraid such direction cannot be issued. However, if the work is available, it would be open to the petitioner to make application and in that event the same shall be considered keeping in view of the past performance of the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd. S. R. Singh, J. 26.10.1998" ;