Jagdish Singh vs State of U.P. and another

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the Seamed Standing Counsel.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.11.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition of the appellant finally.

The brief facts necessary for deciding the case are that the appellant was initially engaged on muster roll in the Irrigation Department in the year 1980. By an order dated 31.8.1987, the appellant along with two other persons were taken in workcharge establishment against the vacant posts. The order dated 31.8.1987 stated that the said engagement was purely temporary and subsequently vide order dated 18.12.1987 order dated 31.8.1987 was cancelled. The said order was challenged by the appellant in the writ petition.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the order canceling his appointment was unreasoned and further in the counter affidavit also no reasons were given by the respondents for canceling the said appointment. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties disposed of the writ petition observing that "in the absence of any reason recorded in the order of termination it will not be justified to issue any writ in favour of the petitioner unless the petitioners proves that on account of violation of any principles of natural justice his case has been prejudiced of any vested right has been infringed.

Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the appellant was only temporarily engaged and he has no right to the post. He further submits that the appellant was engaged on work charge establishment.

We have considered the submission and perused the records.

There is no dispute that the appellant was initially taken in the muster roll and after having rendered seven years of service in muster roll he was taken in work charge establishment. Although the order taking the appellant in the work charge establishment has been cancelled subsequently on 18.12.1987, but no reason were given in the order nor any reason has come in the counter affidavit for justifying the cancellation. The learned Counsel for the appellant, however, has fairly conceded that after 1987 the appellant has not been given any work and he is not continuing.

Learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition has observed that this order will not preclude the respondents to consider the engagement of the petitioner in the establishment in question on muster roll on any other posts or post of driver in said capacity or in other capacity.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that ends of justice be served in directing the respondent No. 2 Superintending Engineer to consider the claim of the writ petitionerappellant for being taken into work charge establishment on the post on which he was working as work charge employee or if the appellant is not eligible to be taken into the work charge establishment to consider his claim on muster roll, within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The respondent while considering the claim of the appellantwrit petitioner, in the event he is found fit as Driver, the age relaxation be also given by the respondents.

With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is disposed of.