MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.K. Mishra and Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State -respondents.
(2.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.10.2006 passed by respondent No. 2 (annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) by which the department has rejected the claim of the petitioner for his regularization and further a direction may be issued to the respondents to permit the petitioner to work on the class -IV post on which he was working and pay him salary.
(3.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows: - The petitioner was engaged as daily wager on 18.10.1988 as class -IV employee under the respondent No. 3 and was discharging his duties accordingly till 27.11.2006. In exercise of power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the State Government has framed U.P. Regularization of Daily wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "2001 Rules") published in the Gazette dated 21st December 2001 which provides for regularization of such daily wage employees in Group 'D' posts who were appointed before 29th June 1991 and were continuing in service on the date of commencement of said Rules. Since, the petitioner was appointed prior to 29th June 1991 and was continuing in service on 21st December 2001, he claimed that he was entitled for regularization under the said Rules. Respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was initially engaged in the department on daily wage basis since 1991 to 2001. Categorical stand has been taken in paragraph No. 6 of the counter affidavit that time to time he had been engaged only for very limited period and there was no continuous work performed by the petitioner in the department. For ready reference, the details pertaining to his engagement in the department as averred in paragraph No. 6 of the counter affidavit is reproduced herein below: -;