High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ramesh Chandra Yadav & Others v. State Of U.P.& Others - WRIT - A No. 29626 of 2000  RD-AH 4492 (24 February 2006)
Court No. 30
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29626 of 2000
Ramesh Chandra Yadav & others ------ Petitioners
State of U.P. and others ---- Respondents.
Hon'ble V.C.Misra, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in this case. On the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself in terms of the Rules of Court.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned order dated 6.4.2000 and tender notice (Annexure No. 9 and 10 to the writ petition respectively) and for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in Group D cadre and for providing pay scale of Group D post and further for a direction commanding the respondents not to change the present status of the petitioners from dailywage employees of the Government Animal Husbandry department to the contractual labour.
The petitioners have been working in the capacity of dailywagers with the department of Government Animal Husbandry Farm Bharari, Jhansi since long, some of them right from 1980 on wards as disclosed in Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. They moved a representation-dated 4.11.2000 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) for being regularised in accordance with law and rules. It has been contended in the writ petition that respondent no. 3- Deputy Director Animal Husbandry, Lucknow Circle, Lucknow with reference to the respondent no. 2- Director, Animal Husbandry, Government of U.P., issued the impugned order dated 6.4.2000 (annexure No. 9 to the writ petition) by which it was directed to abolish the system of regular working of dailywagers and to switchover by giving the entire work on contract basis and in pursuance thereof the impugned tender was invited, copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioners is that if the system to engage contractual laboureres is introduced they would be thrown out from the employment.
In the counter affidavit at para 13 it has been stated that all the petitioners have not been removed from their services but on consideration of exigency of work and on the basis of seniority of dailywagers work would be taken from them. At para 17 in the counter affidavit it has been clearly stated that no action was contemplated in pursuance of the impugned tender notice, so floated earlier (Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition) nor any work was being carried out on contractual basis and the work was being performed by the concerned dailywage employees of the department.
Learned counsel for the petitioners during course of the arguments supplied a copy of the order dated 17.11.2005 issued by the office of respondent no. 3- Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Lucknow Circle, Lucknow by which certain persons (dailywagers on Group D post) would be considered for regularization in accordance with the provisions of Regularization Rules, 2001 and on the basis of recommendation of departmental selection committee dated 30.12.2004. Drawing attention of the Court on the said order dated 17.11.2005 in which some of the persons shown at serial numbers 9, 10, 15 and 16 are arrayed as petitioners at serial number 3, 9, 1 and 15 respectively, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in accordance with the said Government order for the purposes of regularization, case of the remaining petitioners may also be considered.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and looked into the record of the case as well as copy of the office order dated 17.11.2005 so supplied by the learned counsel for the petitioners which is taken on record, I find that under the said circumstances and due to specific averments made by the respondents in its counter affidavit, relief no. 1 sought for quashing of the impugned order dated 6.4.2000 (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition) and impugned tender notice (Annexure No.10 to the writ petition) has become infructuous So far as relief no. 2 is concerned, the respondent no. 2 is directed to consider and dispose off the petitioners' representation dated 4.11.2000 or any other representation, if so moved by the petitioners in respect with regularization of their services after affording opportunity of hearing to them in accordance with the provisions of Regularization Rules, 2001 and in accordance with the procedures referred to in the aforesaid order dated 17.11.2005 issued by respondent no. 3- Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Lucknow Circle, Lucknow expeditiously preferably within three months from the date the certified copy of this order is served on respondent no. 2.
With the above directions and observations the writ petition is disposed off. No order as to costs.
Kdo/ w p 29626/ 2000
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.