Court No. - 6 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4130 of 2002 Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secy.Medical Health And 2 Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- S. Chandra,Sudeep Seth Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain,J.
Heard Sri Sudeep Seth learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.
The petitioner was initially appointed on 1.4.1996 with the opposite
parties as daily wager. In due course of time he moved a writ petition
praying for regularisation of his services. The court passed an order
directing the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner in
view of the Regularisation Rules if the posts are available. When the
consideration was not made, contempt petition was also filed. The
opposite parties finally considered the case of the petitioner and found
that he could not stand the test of Rule 4(1) of the U.P. Regularisation
of Appointments of Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001. Accordingly, the
petitioners services were orally terminated on the same day. Although
the fact that the petitioner did not qualify to be regularized in
accordance with the aforesaid rules could not be denied by Sri Sudeep
Seth, however, he valiantly tried to plead the case of the petitioner on
the ground that two junior persons were working in the department
when the services of the petitioner were terminated.
Accordingly, the case of the petitioner is hit by Rule 6(P) of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act but the learned Standing Counsel on the basis
of record has informed that the junior persons had full qualifications to
be regularized under the aforesaid rules. Their services have been
regularized also. Accordingly, no discrimination has been made with
the petitioner. The termination of the petitioner is fully justified because
there is provision of Rule 8(1) of the U.P. Regularisation of
Appointments of Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001 that in case the
candidates does not fulfill the requirements of the said rules. His
services will be terminated forthwith and wages of one month shall be
given.
Although this is a hard case because it is a matter of a poor person but
legally there is no infirmity in the order. Petition is devoid of merit.
It is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.8.2010
Om.