- (1.) HEARD Mr. P. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abhinav Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) THE appellant joined the services under the District Collector, Deoria on 23-5-1988 for a couple of months during the election period. He was subsequently discontinued. It is his case that he was entitled to the benefits under the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991. He filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56080 of 2005. That writ petition came to be dismissed by an order dated 9-1-2007. The learned Single Judge has decided another writ petition of one Prabhu Nath Prasad being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1473 of 2006 on 9-1-2007 and the learned Judge observed that since the controversy involved in the present writ was same as that one, the petition would not be entertained and was, therefore, dismissed.
(3.) THE case of the appellant was that he was entitled to absorption under those Rules. For that, it was necessary for him to show that he was falling in the definition of a retrenched employee, which is available under Rule 2 (c) of the 1991 Rules. This definition reads as follows : "2 (c) "retrenched employee" means a person who was appointed on a post under the Government or a Public Corporation on or before October 1, 1986 in accordance with the procedure laid down for recruitment to the post and was continuously working in any post under the Government or such corporation up to the date of his retrenchment due to reduction in or winding up of any establishment of the Government or the Public Corporation as the case may be and in respect of whom a certificate of being a retrenched employee has been issued by his appointing authority. " From the definition, it is clear that a retrenched employee had to be in the Government employment or in the Public Corporation on or before October 1, 1986.;