Vs. State of U.P. & Ors  INSC 538 (27 September 1995)
Agrawal, S.C. (J) Agrawal, S.C. (J) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) S.C. Agrawal.
1996 AIR 717 1995 SCC (6) 464 JT 1995 (7) 129 1995 SCALE (5)609
appellant was appointed as Registration Clerk on daily wage basis on September 18, 1986 in the office of District
Registrar, Allahabad district, Uttar Pradesh. He had
worked as Registration Clerk for various periods from time to time from September 18, 1986 till July 1, 1990. On June
30, 1988 he applied
for appointment on the post of Peon which had fallen vacant on retirement of Inamul
Haque and on July 2,
1990 he was appointed
on the said post of Peon on the pay scale of Rs. 750-940. The appellant made a
representation on February
4, 1991 for regularisation
of his service and the said representation was forwarded by the District
Registrar to the Inspector General of Registration on February 21, 1991 wherein the District Registrar had
recommended that the service period of the appellant may be extended. Inspite
of the said recommendation the appointment of the appellant was discontinued
after February 28, 1991.
appellant filed a Writ Petition which has been dismissed by the High Court alongwith
other writ petitions by common judgment dated February 8, 1995.
grievance of the appellant is that his case was wrongly connected with other
matters which related to Registration Clerks on daily wage basis while the case
of the appellant related to his continuation on the post of Peon on which post
he was appointed on ad hoc basis by order dated July 2, 1990. We find merit in the said contention of the appellant.
Since the writ petition filed by the appellant related to continuance of his
appointment on the post of Peon and not on the post of Registration Clerks and
the appellant was holding the post of Peon and not the post of Registration
Clerks, his writ petition could not be linked with the writ petitions and
special appeals of the Registration Clerks employed on daily wage basis. The
order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant cannot,
therefore, be upheld.
appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment of the High Court dated February 8, 1995 in so far as it relates to dismissal
of the writ petition No. 8351 of 1991 filed by the appellant, is set aside and
the said writ petition is restored and it is remanded to the High Court for
consideration on merits. No order as to costs.