Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

TRIJUGI NARAIAN versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Trijugi Naraian v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 18535 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 6761 (12 April 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition   No.    18535  of  2007

Trijugi Narain  ......................................................................    Petitioner

Versus

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.          

D/-12.4.2007

SCS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.