High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Trijugi Naraian v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 18535 of 2007  RD-AH 6761 (12 April 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18535 of 2007
Trijugi Narain ...................................................................... Petitioner
State of Uttar Pradesh & others .............................. Respondents
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner.
By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 11.8.2006 passed by the Superintending Engineer deciding the representation of the petitioner. Writ petition No. 24198 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of on 3.5.2006 directing the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner by which he claimed to be regularised on the post of Roller Driver. The Superintending Engineer has passed the order dated 11.8.2006 in which it has been held that the petitioner is Mixal operator and not Roller driver. It is stated that the regularisation on the post of Roller driver is made on the basis of seniority list maintained on the State level whereas the seniority list of Mixal operators is maintained on district level. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is working as Roller driver since 1995 and is entitled for regularisation on the post of Roller driver.
I have considered the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The petitioner was working in work charge establishment as Mixal cleaner. By an order dated 11.12.1986 the petitioner was promoted as Mixal operator with effect from 1.10.1987. The petitioner was given charge of Roller driver by order dated 24.5.1995 and the petitioner claims to be working as Roller driver since then. The petitioner has filed copy of order of the Executive Engineer dated 9.3.2000 Annexure-3 to the writ petition by which his salary has been fixed in the revised pay scale on the post of Mixal operator. From the above facts it is clear that substantive post of the petitioner is Mixal operator . The Superintending Engineer in the impugned order dated 11.8.2006 has found that the regularisation of the post of Roller driver is made on the basis of integrated seniority list of the State whereas regularisation of Mixal operator is done on the basis of district level seniority list. The Executive Engineer has rightly observed that the petitioner's case cannot be equated with the cadre of Roller driver. The order further observed that in the list of work charge / daily wager of the Mixal operator petitioner's name is at serial No. 1 in the district and he is not being regularised due to the fact that no post o f Mixal operator is vacant in the district. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the identity card which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition showing that the petitioner was mentioned as Roller driver in the identity card. For knowing the nature of appointment of the petitioner the identity card is not conclusive proof, from the materials brought on the record it is clear that the substantive post of the petitioner is only Mixal operator. The petitioner has not been regularised due to the fact that no post of Mixal operator is vacant in the district. It is thus observed that as and when any post of Mixal operator falls vacant in the district the petitioner's claim for regularisation on the said post be considered.
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.