A
R.S. PANDEY
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 27, 1995
B
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.J
Se1vice Law :
Registration C/e1k-Appoi11tment on daily wages--S11bseq11ently ap-
C poillted as Peon on adhoc basis--Termillation of se1vice-W!it-C/10/-
lellge-Writ col!nected with othei- writs filed by Clerks Oil daily
wages-Disposal-Held not justified-Matter remanded to High Cowt for
reconsiderarion.
The appellant initially appointed as Registration Clerk on daily
D wages in the office of District Registrar, Allahabad was subsequently
appointed as Peon on ad hoc basis. Inspite of recommendation of the
Inspector General of Registration to extend the appellant's service period
the appointment of appellant was discontinued. His petition challenging
termination was dismissed by the High Court along with other writ peti-
E
F
tions filed by the Registration Clerks appointed on daily wages. Hence this
appeal.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : Since the writ. petition filed by the appellant related to
continuance of his appointment on the post of Peon and not on the post
or Registration Clerks and the appellant was holding the post of Peon and
not the post of Registration Clerk, his writ petition could not be linked
with the m·it 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 is, therefore, set aside. The said writ petition
G is restored and it is remanded to the High Court for consideration on
merits. [115-G-H, 116-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9134 of
1995.
H
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.2.95 of the Allahabad High
114
'
R.S. PANDEY v. STATE[S.CAGRAWAL,l.]
115
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 8351of1991.
A
Mrs. V.D. Khanna for the Appellant.
R.B. Misra for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
S.C. AGRAWAL, J. Leave granted.
The 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 C
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 D
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.
The appellant filed a Writ petition which has been dismissed by the High E
Court alongwith other writ petitions by common judgment dated February
8, 1995.
The 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 F
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 appoint-
ment 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 G
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
canno~ therefore, be upheld.
The appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment of the High H
116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
Court dated February 8, 1995 in so for 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 con-
sideration on merits. No order as to costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal allowed.
Lex