Bhanwar Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioners Mohd. Khursheed Anwar and Ashok Kumar, by filing this writ application, prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to place them in the pay-scale of the post of Assistant Engineer and accordingly pay their salary with allowances as admissible to the said post.
(2.) ACCORDING to them, they were engaged by the U. P. Land Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) initially on contract basis and on a consolidated salary of Rs. 2,000. In the year 1991, they submitted their applications for appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer by direct recruitment, whereupon they were required to appear for interview on 15.2.1991. A selection committee conducted the interview and found them suitable for appointment as Assistant Engineers. Pursuant to their appointment letters, the petitioner No. 1 Mohd. Khursheed Anwar joined his post on 25.2.1991, while Ashok Kumar submitted his joining report a little later, i.e., on 11.3.1991. Since then, they have been continuously working without any break. However, their tenure of appointment was extended from time to time in the years 1991 and 1992 but then finding that their services were permanently required, the Corporation extended their term for indefinite period until further orders. Both the petitioners claimed them to be well qualified Engineers. They discharged their duty with excellent performance but were not given the pay-scale prescribed for the post of Assistant Engineer, i.e., 2,200-4,000. They are still being paid consolidated salary of Rs. 2,000, now revised to Rs. 7,150. In spite of their long tenure in service, their claim for regularisation has not yet been considered by the Corporation. Their request for pay parity on the strength of their claim that since they were discharging their duty as Assistant Engineer, they were entitled to draw the salary admissible to the pay scale of the said post was declined. Even their genuine claim for transfer allowance following their transfer from one place to another has not been acceded to. They moved their representations (copies Annexures-9 and 10) praying for their regularisation in service and until regularisation requested for grant of the pay-scale referred to above but the authorities did not pay any heed. It was in these circumstances that the petitioners were obliged to file this writ application. The opposite parties resisted this petition by filing counter-affidavit of Shri Pawan Agrawal, Company Secretary of the Corporation. Shri Agrawal denied the petitioner's contention that they were appointed as Assistant Engineers ; instead, as submitted by him, the two petitioners were engaged on contract basis initially for a period of three months on a monthly consolidated salary of Rs. 2,000. However, the term of their service was extended from time to time depending upon the need for the work. It was clearly mentioned in their appointment letters that they would not be entitled for regularisation on the basis of their appointment and continuance in service for any period. Shri Agrawal also rejected the petitioner's claim of their having been appointed as Assistant Engineer. Subsequently, Shri D. K. Mittal, Managing Director of the Corporation filed his affidavit asserting therein that the main activity of the Corporation is to help the farmers in the venture of reclamation of their barren land and for that purpose, projects are prepared and funds are also made available to the needy farmers. The Corporation does not have funds of its own and the projects for carrying out land reclamation activities are sponsored by funding agencies like World Bank, E.E.C. and Million Wells Scheme. On completion of the projects, staff and officers engaged to carry out the projects are discharged from service and as, always such projects are time bound, the staff or the officers are not engaged on permanent basis. The petitioners too were recruited on contract basis but they were not appointed as Assistant Engineers (Civil), rather they were asked to discharge the duties of Junior Engineers. As a matter of fact, the post of an Assistant Engineer has never existed in the Corporation nor such a post is needed. According to the Government order dated 22.2.1993, various sanctioned posts were to be filled by staff on deputation and no direct recruitment was authorised. The staff on deputation basis is not easily available and it was for this reason that the Corporation engaged staff and officers on contract basis. The petitioners were called again for interview on 8.9.1994 and offered enhanced salary of Rs. 2,950 per month for the post of Junior Engineer (Drainage). The petitioner's representations were disposed of in due course. The petitioners committed serious irregularities in discharge of their duty, as a consequence enquiries were initiated against them. Therefore, their claim for their excellent performance was not sustainable. As a matter of fact, neither the petitioners were appointed on consolidated pay nor they discharged the duty of an Assistant Engineer. Their appointment cannot even be termed to be on ad hoc basis. Their petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) MR. D. K. Mittal, Managing Director of the Corporation filed a supplementary affidavit and thereby placed before the Court that under the Services Rules of the Corporation, the classification of the posts under Corporation for purposes of appointment, control and discipline shall broadly be as laid in Annexure-A and no post of Assistant Engineer has been shown, therein, to be existing. Rules 7A, 7B, 17(A) and 18 to 28 were quoted with a view to prove as to how the appointment either by way of promotion from amongst the Corporation employees or on deputation or reemployment or on contract basis can be made by the Corporation. It was also stated by the Managing Director that the State Government sanctioned vide its order dated 22.1.1993, various posts but no post of Assistant Engineer, Mechanical or Civil or Agricultural was created. He reiterated further that the petitioners were engaged on contract basis as Junior Engineer according to the provisions of Rule 28 (2). Mohd. Khursheed Anwar filed a rejoinder-affidavit to the supplementary counter-affidavit of the Managing Director and reiterating his claim that he and Ashok Kumar were appointed as Assistant Engineer referred to the letter dated 8.4.1992 of the Managing Director addressed to the Government in which it was admitted that 260 posts were existing including two posts of Assistant Engineers as shown in Col. Nos. 19 and 20 of the list of such sanctioned posts.;