- (1.) Petitioner has approached this Court praying for condonation of a break of 225 days i.e. from 7.5.1986 to 17.12.1986 and to regularize his services w.e.f. 30.09.1988 instead of 1.1.1991 from which date the petitioner has been regularized against the post of SS Master.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Social Studies Master on 27.1.1986 and continued as such till 6.5.1986. He was again appointed on 18.12.1986 and had been continuing as S.S. Master till date. Petitioner was entitled to regularization of his services in the light of the policy decision dated 6.4.1990, according to which on completion of 2 years' service, an employee has to be regularized. In spite of that, petitioner has been regularized w.e.f. 1.1.1991, which the counsel for the petitioner contends, is not in consonance with the claim to which he is entitled to, provided the break in service for 225 days from 7.5.1986 to 17.12.1986 is condoned. He contends that the petitioner has been approaching the respondents for the grant of the claim, as has been submitted through the present writ petition. He contends that the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 30.09.1988 instead of 1.1.1991 is not in consonance with law and, therefore, a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from 30.09.1988. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner on a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Yadunath Jha vs.Union of India and another, 1986 3 SCC 325 to contend that delay alone cannot be a ground for not granting the relief, as has been claimed by the petitioner.
(3.) I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records of the case.;