RAKESH SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD Pt. S. Chandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) NO one has put in appearance on behalf of the employer U.P. Development Systems Corporation Ltd., respondent No. 1. Learned Standing Counsel is present for respondent No. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on 7.1.1993 as Office Assistant, by the Appropriate Authority of U.P. Development System Corporation Limited, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation. When has now completed more than thirteen years' continuous service in the Corporation. When the writ petition was filed, the petitioner had sought pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200, which was being allowed to similarly placed Office Assistants of the Corporation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that presently, the petitioner is working against a sanctioned post of Office Assistant Grade-I. Her name is also being shown as Office Assistant Grade-I in the establishment list. The petitioner is discharging duties, functions and responsibilities of the post of clerk/typist. She is discharging the same duties and functions which are being discharged by similarly placed Office Assistants. In support of her case, an Office Order dated 28.11.2001 has been produced along with the rejoinder affidavit. This order indicates that the petitioner was required to discharge all ministerial duties, functions which were being done by the Office Assistant Grade-I. She was also required to do typing job as entrusted to her by the Section Officers, Office Superintendent and other staff. She was to report to Section Officer. On other occasions also, the petitioner had submitted several representations to the appropriate authorities of the Corporation to regularize her services and pay her regular pay scale as was being allowed to her juniors and similarly placed employees S/Sri Mahesh Kumar, Shree Narayan, Vijay Kumar and Hare Ram Singh. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of the Court that this Court had granted indulgence in favour of similarly placed employees in Writ Petition No. 3035 (S/S) of 2000, Mahesh Kumar and others v. The U.P. Development Systems Corporation Ltd. and others, and in furtherance of the Court's order dated 13.12.2001, the said petitioners were allowed all the benefits admissible to regular employees. The petitioner is in service and employer-employee relations are continuing for the last more than thirteen years. A permanent post is available, on which the petitioner can be accommodated. The petitioner has placed reliance on (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1595 (SC), State of U.P. and others v. Putti Lal; (1999) 3 UPLBEC 1964, State of U.P. and others v. Pawan Kumar Tewari and others and 2003 (4) ESC 2100 (Alld.), Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, in support of her submissions.
(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by Sri Anurag Srivastava, Managing Director of the Corporation, it has been submitted that the petitioner was engaged on 7.1.1993 for typing work in the Corporation on consolidated pay for three months. She was allowed extensions of services. Since the petitioner was appointed on consolidated wages basis and is not in regular establishment of the Corporation, she is not entitled for regularization. She was engaged in the Corporation as per exigencies of services. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the Board of Directors in its 74th meeting held on 31.7.1994 took a decision that no appointment may be made in Group-C category. The petitioner's representation had already beet disposed of on 28.8.2001. In para 7 of the counter affidavit, the Managing Director of the Corporation had indicated that the financial condition of the Corporation was very bad and it was suffering losses. In these circumstances, the Corporation was unable to provide the service benefits as sought by the petitioner. No other reasons have been indicated in this counter affidavit, which was filed on 20.9.2001.;