Devi Prasad Singh, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned standing counsel. Both these writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact hence they are decided by this common judgment and order.
(2.) According to petitioner's counsel, the petitioner was appointed on 1-7-1987 as a Class IV employee under Work-Charge Establishment. The services of the petitioner were dispensed with orally by the order dated 19-5- 1997. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 5259 (S/S) of 1997 which was finally disposed of by the judgment and order dated 20-1-2000 contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. While deciding the controversy this Court had directed the respondents to extend the benefit of earlier judgment of this Court reported in 1993 HVD (Allahabad) Vol. IV page 69: H. M. Rizvi and others. v. Rural Engineering Service U. P. & others . In the case of H. M. Rizvi (supra), the controversy before this Court was also relating to retrenchment of workmen. It was held by this Court that since the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act have not been followed while terminating services, the termination stands nullified. The operative portion of the judgment of H. M. Rizvi's case is reproduced as under: "47. In view of what has been indicated hereinabove, the writ petitions succeed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioners to work in the same posts held by them in the establishment of Rural Engineering Service ignoring the oral order of discharge/termination passed against them. The petitioners would be deemed to be in service during the period they were not allowed to work in pursuance of the oral order of discharge termination passed against them. But they would be entitled for back wages. This order has been passed only for the reason that it would put the department of Rural Engineering Services to a great financial strain. The Engineers who were engaged as work charge Engineers would be paid monthly salary @ 1750/- + 750/ - as work charge employees who were engaged as Clerks/Peon (Class IV employees) etc.. would be paid the minimum scale of pay, which is being given to class III and IV employees working in the RES department. The opposite parties are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularisation of the services in the light of the observations made above. Writ allowed."
(3.) According to petitioner's counsel, since the petitioner's services were also terminated orally on 19-5-1997 and this Court while adjudicating the petitioner's earlier Writ Petition No. 5259 (S/S) of 1997, had directed to extend the benefit of the judgment of H. M. Rizvi (supra), the petitioner was entitled for restoration of his service with all benefits. The petitioner submitted representation along with a copy of the said judgment dated 20-1-2000 on 31-1-2000. In the meantime, the Government order dated 30-5-2000 contained in Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition, was issued formulating the scheme relating to work charge establishment in the Rural Engineering Services. In compliance of the judgment and order of this Court dated 20-1-2000, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 3-11- 2000. While passing the order dated 3-11- 2000 contained in Annexure No. 5-A to the writ petition, it has been observed that between 1989 to 1997, the petitioner discharged duty for more than 240 days and the petitioner was also paid minimum pay scale admissible to his cadre in view of the H. M. Rizvi's case (supra). The order also provided that steps shall be taken for regularisation of services in pursuance of the Government order issued from time to time. By the order dated 31-1- 2001. contained in Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition, the petitioner was directed to receive salary payable to daily wage employee. However, the petitioner declined to accept the salary payable to daily wage employee on the ground that in view of the Government order dated 3-1-2000, the petitioner was entitled for minimum pay scale admissible to his cadre. It appears that when the petitioner failed to get salary in terms of the order dated 3-11-2000, he filed CO. Misc. Case No. 273 (C) of 2001 for proceeding against the competent authority under the Contempt of Courts Act. Notices were issued on 22-1-2001 against the competent authority. It was in view of the aforesaid backdrop that by an order dated 16- 3-2001 contained in Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition. the Executive Engineer had terminated petitioner's services in pursuance of power conferred under Section 6N of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The order of termination dated 16-3-2001 has been impugned in the connected Writ Petition No. 6484 (S/S) of 2002. By an interim order this Court directed to decide the petitioner's representation in the aforesaid writ petition. The competent authority by the impugned order dated 11-12-2002 contained in Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition, has rejected the petitioner's representation. Hence, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner.;