RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition was decided along with bunch of 48 other cases relating to daily wagers vide judgment and order dated 11.5.2004, with the following directions : "21. The services of the petitioner are sought to be terminated on the ground that their is no work for the petitioner and there is no vacancy against which they can adjusted. The stand of department is falsified by their own action. Regard may also be had to the direction given in the case of Khagesh Kumar werein the Apex Court has noticed in paragraph 15 of the judgment that a large number of post of registration clerks are vacant in the registration department as well as directions issued by the High Court in various writ petitions and special appeal. Pursuant to decision by Apex Court in Khagesh Kumar(supra). 22. Thus from the various direction passed in the Writ Petition. Special appeals, it is evident that direction have been issued that the petitioner have been permitted to continue till they are regularize particularly in view of the direction issued by the Supreme Court in judgment in Khagesh Kumar and others (supra). It has already been noticed that the departments not complying with the direction of the High Court as well as the Apex Court. Their action amounts to contempt. This Court has viewed this matter very seriously and concern particularly, the inaction of the authorities for not complying the order and judgment of the Court. However one more opportunity is granted to the authorities to comply with the order and judgment in letter and spirit. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the respondents to comply with the direction issued by the Apex Court as contained in para 24 of the judgment of Khagesh Kumar and others (supra) which is as under: (1) The petitioner or other similarly placed persons who were employed as registration clerks on daily wage basis prior to October 1, 1986 shall be considered for regularization under the provisions of Rule 4 (1) (II) and they have completed three years continuous service. The said period of three years shall be computed by taking.......the actual period during which the employee had worked as registration clerk on daily wage basis. The period during which such an employee has performed the duties of Registration Clerk under paragraph 101 of the manual shall be counted as part of service of the purpose of such regularization. (2) In the event of appointment on regular basis on the post of Registration Clerk, the petitioner or other similarly placed persons who had worked as registration clerks on daily wage basis may be given one opportunity of being relaxation in the matter of age requirement prescribed for such appointment under the rules. (3) The subordinate Service Selection Commission while making selection for regular appointment to the posts of registration clerks shall give weight age for their experience to the registration clerks who have worked on daily wage basis and shall framed suitable guidelines for that purpose. (4) If any of the petitioner of other similarly placed person was required to perform the duties of registration clerk as an Apprentice under paragraph 101 of the manual, he may submit a representation to the appropriate authority setting out the full particulars of such employment within three months and the concerned authority after verifying the correctness of the said claim, shall pass the necessary order for the period he is found to have so worked on the post of registration clerk. The said payment shall be made within a period of three months from the date of submission of the representation. 23. The petitioner are further directed to give training in computer to daily wage registration clerks so that they can work in the registration department. It may not be forgotten that in similar circumstances, the banks and other such offices have provided training to their staffs and officers to make them computer compatible. If it is not possible for the department to give them training, the petitioner shall be adjusted in the vacancies of clerks already existing and in future vacancies till all the persons working in the registration department on daily wagers as registration clerks etc. are absorbed in the following manner: (i) A seniority list will be prepared by the department according to the date of initial appointment of the daily wage employee working on the post of Jr. clerk/registration clerk. (ii) All these employees who have worked for three years according to the norms laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court shall be appointed according to their seniority against existing vacancies. (iii) After filling up the existing vacancies these employees shall be given appointment on temporary vacancies. (iv) Rest of the Jr. Clerks/Registration Clerks working on daily wages will be given appointment for at least three months in every financial year for which necessary sanction shall be taken from competent authorities. (v) Vacancies accruing every year shall be first filled up from Junior Clerks/Registration Clerks who have been given temporary appointment as per direction No. II given above. (vi) The temporary vacancies shall be filled from the Junior Clerks/Registration Clerks according to the seniority list prepared as direction No.1. 24. The additional I.G. Registration U.P. Allahabad shall submit a report every quarter to the Court giving details through the Standing Counsel showing compliance of the case of Khagesh Kumar and others (supra) by the Apex Court. The first compliance report regarding filling up of the vacancies shall be submitted by the I.G. Registration U.P. Allahabad on or before 30th November, 2004 and every three months thereafter till all the petitioners are absorbed. In view of the aforesaid direction/order to terminating the service of the petitioner are quashed. They shall be continued in service by the department till the compliance of the order issued by this Court as well as Apex Court is made and all of them are absorbed in service. The writ petition is allowed with above directions". Special Appeal No. 797 of 2002 was filed by the State on the ground that petitioner was not a daily wager but a temporary employee and his case was wrongly included in the bunch of daily wagers. One of the grounds taken in the special appeal was also that the Court could not have directed the appellants to absorb the petitioner as for this purpose a committee was constituted under U.P. Regularization of Ad hoc Appointment (on posts outside the purview of Service Commission) Rules, 2001 which alone can consider regularization of the petitioner.
(3.) THE Special Appeal was allowed on the ground that case of the petitioner was wrongly clubbed with the bunch of cases.;