B. Amit Sthalekar, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs: "1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.1.2015 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition); 2.ISSUE a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to fill any post till the statutory rules of regularization are framed pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Special Appeal No. 399 of 2011 (U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Vs. Sunil Kumar) affirming the Single Bench judgment dated 18.3.2011 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7621 (S/S) of 2008 (Ram Naresh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 29.7.2013 in S.L.P. No. 12793 of 2013 (Annexure Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to the writ petition); Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus instituting a CBI probe in respect of 398 appointments made pursuant to the impugned advertisement No. 01/2013 who were Issued appointment letters after retirement of the respondent No. 6 on 31.1.2014, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Punjab judgment and O. Chankradhar Vs. Union of India order; 3.ISSUE a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to comply the direction contained in Special Appeal No. 399 of 2011 U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Vs. Sunil Kumar Srivastava and regularise the services of the petitioner; 4.ISSUE a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision of the Board of Directors dated 26.7.2013 (Annexure No. 14) impugned advertisement No. 01/2013 (Annexure No. 11) and all consequential appointments done on the post; Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus that pending writ petition the services of the petitioner be not disturbed in any manner and he be paid salary regularly"
(2.) I have heard Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ajay Bhanot, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 and Shri Pankaj Rai, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1.
(3.) The petitioner is stated to be working in the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) as a Group D employee on a fixed pay of Rs. 6,200/ - per month. The grievance is that although he is working as such since 2001 and there are about 2200 other employees similarly situated in the whole of U.P. and Uttarakhand in the various departments of the respondent -Corporation, his services have not been regularized. It appears that the Board of Directors of the Corporation had taken a decision for regularization of the services of such persons but when that was not done, writ petition No. 7621 (S/S) of 2008 Ram Naresh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) was filed. Several other persons also filed similar writ petitions and the said writ petitions were allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by a common judgement dated 18.4.2011 and while quashing the G.O. dated 17.5.2009 and the advertisement No. 3 dated 13.11.2008 the Court directed the Board of Directors to implement its decision for regularization of the petitioners within a reasonable time. In the said judgement it was observed by the learned Single Judge that since no procedure for appointment was prescribed under the Regulation and the petitioners were appointed only on fixed wages, their appointment cannot be said to be illegal.;