DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri A.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Badrul Hasan, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the oral termination and non-regularization on the post of Peon on which, it is said that petitioner was working in Government Inter College, Unnao, he has filed the instant writ petition inter-alia on the ground that petitioner had worked as daily rated Peon for the last more than 13 years, but he has been denied regularization and has also asserted that his claim has wrongly been rejected vide order dated 23.7.2002. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner Rules relating to regularization of daily rated Group 'D' employee has been notified in the year 2001 whereby cut off date i.e. 20.6.1991 has been prescribed for regularization and the Government Order has also been issued on 8.9.2010 whereby and where under it has been provided that the daily rated employees shall be regularized and if there is no post, supernumerary post be created. Therefore, the action of the respondents in denying the benefit of regularization is wholly unjust and illegal and to strengthen his arguments, reliance has been placed on a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Munna Lal v. State of U.P. and others [2016 (34) LCD 1382].
(3.) Refuting the allegations of the petitioner, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has vehemently argued that the petitioner was not engaged by the competent authority by a written order rather he was engaged as Part Time Worker on honorarium basis. No work has been taken from the petitioner continuously or without interruption. It has further been pointed out that against the regular and substantive post of class IV, the regular incumbents are already working and no post is available or vacant in the college against which, his services could be regularized. In these circumstances, there is no question of regularizing services of the petitioner and to allow him to work against a regular post.;