Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the records.
(2.) THE petitioner was engaged as Waterman in January, 1982. He filed a Writ Petition No. 36103 of 1994 claiming that he is entitled to be regularized in service on the ground that he had been working against the class IV post in the Registration department for last several years. THE petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 24.4.1999 with direction to the respondents to consider his case for regularization on the post of Waterman within two months from the date of filing of writ petition along with certified copy of the order. The post of Waterman, which was a part time post, was abolished by the State Government in 1998 vide order dated 12th August, 1998 and there was a ban on recruitment imposed by the State vide order dated 20th December, 2000 on Group 'D' posts. It appears that District Registrar, Fatehpur instead of considering the case of the petitioner according to the provisions of U. P. Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments (on Post Outside Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1988, appointed the petitioner vide order dated 10.3.2000 in a vacancy which had arisen due to retirement of one Ramashanker in the pay scale of Rs. 2,550-3,200 in order to comply with the directions of this Court dated 24.4.1999. Thereafter the representation of the petitioner for regularization of his service was considered and was rejected by the District Registrar, Registration, U. P. at Fatehpur vide order dated 25.6.2001 on the ground that post of peon against which the petitioner was re-adjusted by way of reappointment has been cancelled by the State Government. Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court that the impugned order dated 25.6.2001 has been passed by the respondents ignoring the order of this Court dated 8.9.1999, 24.11.1999, 28.4.2001 and 17.5.2001 passed in various petitions filed by the petitioner and others. By these orders the respondents were directed to decide the representation of the petitioner with regard to his regularization within two months but his service has not been regularized.
(3.) FROM Annexure-2, judgment dated 8.9.1999 in Writ Petition No. 19965 of 1993, Ramavtar v. State of U. P. and others, it is evident that there was no sanctioned post of Waterman in the department and as such the Court turned down the claim of the petitioner of that writ petition in respect of claim of equal pay for equal work. However the Court directed that the Sri Ramavtar can be adjusted in any other post of Farrash, Coolie etc., which are class IV posts. FROM the array of the parties in Writ Petition No. 19965 of 1993, the petitioner was not a party in the above writ petition and there was no direction in that petition in respect of the petitioner for consideration of his claim for regularization on any other post. Thereafter Writ Petition No. 19062 of 2001 appears to have been filed by Avadhbihari, the petitioner in the instant case in which the Court opined that the order dated 10.3.2000 though purporting to have been passed in compliance of the directions given by the Court vide judgment dated 24.4.1999. By the aforesaid order dated 24.4.1999 the Court had directed that the respondents would consider the case of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Waterman in the office of Sub-Registrar in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the rules. The Court further opined that the District Registrar instead of considering the case of the petitioner for regularization in the vacancy occurred due to retirement of Ramashanker, peon. It further appears from the record that the petitioner was not being paid salary as such he filed another Writ Petition No. 5297 of 2001 which was disposed of vide order dated 14.2.2001 directing the authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner in compliance thereof. The District Registrar, Fatehpur, passed an impugned order dated 10.3.2000. The Court upheld the order of the Deputy Registrar/District Magistrate dated 28.4.2001 that the appointment of the petitioner in the vacancy caused due to retirement of Ramashanker was illegal. It further held that the District Registrar failed to consider whether or not petitioner was entitled to be regularized in accordance with regularization rules and as such the initial order dated 24.4.1999, passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 36103 of 1994 still remains to be complied with. The Writ Petition No. 19062 of 2001 was therefore disposed of with direction to the Deputy Registrar/A.D.M., Fatehpur, shall examine whether the petitioner, on the basis of length of his service etc. is entitled to be regularized in accordance with the U. P. Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1988 and take appropriate decision in compliance of the order dated 24.4.1999 preferably, within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. From the facts narrated above it appears that the question of regularization of the petitioner remained pending upto 24.6.2001 and in the meantime the petitioner who was a daily wager employee was given wages against the post of peon which had occurred due to retirement of Ramashanker. The post of Waterman had already been abolished and it is also not disputed that the State Government has cancelled the post of peon against which the petitioner was working as daily wager in compliance of the order of this Court. The petitioner's representation regarding regularization of service has been rejected vide order dated 25.6.2001.;