High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Bhimsen Sharma v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 66912 of 2006  RD-AH 20807 (11 December 2006)
Court No. 38
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66912 of 2006
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed on daily wage basis on 29.12.1991. On 09.07.1992 his services were dispensed with. Petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29862 of 1992 and therein on 20.08.1992 interim order was passed. Petitioner has contended that pursuant to said interim order, he was reinstated in service till 08.02.1999 and thereafter again his service has been terminated on 08.02.1999. On 09.12.2004 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9005 of 1999 filed by the petitioner this Court directed for consideration of claim of the petitioner. Petitioner has contended that he move representation for offering appointment to him but nothing has been done, as such present writ petition has been filed praying that writ in the nature of mandamus be issued for taking action as recommended.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that once there was an order passed by this Court and recommendation has been made then in all eventuality appointment ought to have been offered to the petitioner as such suitable direction be issued by this Court.
Learned Standing counsel on the other hand contended that claim of the petitioner is in breach of dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, as such no relief can be accorded to the petitioner and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging is to the effect that petitioner was appointed as daily wage basis and thereafter his service has been dispensed with. Petitioner thereafter on the strength to interim order passed by this Court continued up till 08.02.1999 and thereafter on 09.12.2004 only direction which was issued was to consider the claim of the petitioner. Said claim has been recommended. Petitioner intends for enforcement of the same. In view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, petitioner being daily wagers has got no right specially in view of the pronouncement made in paragraph 53 of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court. Petitioner's claim has not all covered under the provision as contained in U.P. Regularization of Daily Wage Appointment on Group 'D' posts Rules 2001.
With the above observations present writ petition is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.