SANJAY MISRA,J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 7 -8 -2000 filed as Annexure -6 to the writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended in paragraph 11 of the writ petition that the services of the petitioner were retrenched without following legal procedure although the petitioner has performed his duty with sincerity and full devotion from 1989 to the year 2000. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a circular dated 7 -4 -2000 a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure -7 to the writ petition. This circular has been issued by Secretary, Rural Engineering Services, U.P. Lucknow a perusal of which indicates that in Writ Petition No. 8148 of 1990 Haider Mehdi Rizvi v. State of U.P. and Ors., this Court had passed an order dated 21 -7 -1993. wherein it had been that Rural Engineering Service is an industry and the persons working therein are covered by the definition of workmen as defined under Industrial Dispute Act and as such it has been stated that the service condition of such workmen will be governed by the Industrial Dispute Act. The petitioner submits that he had earlier filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 36021 of 1999 wherein this Court had passed order on 24 -8 -1999 directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner with respect to regularization of service of the petitioner. As a consequence thereof the respondent No. 2 has considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same by the impugned order. From the impugned order it appears that as per record of the respondents the petitioner has worked for different periods from 1 -1 -1991 to 1 -8 -1992. It has been stated in the impugned order that appointment of the petitioner was for fixed period and fixed wage. It has been found that in the facts and the circumstances of the case the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of regularization under the Rule and consequently the claim of the petitioner has been turned down.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement made in the impugned order to the effect that the petitioner has worked only upto the year 1992 is factually incorrect and that the petitioner has worked sincerely from 1989 to 2000 and the respondents have illegally retrenched the petitioner.;