Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
R.S. PANDEY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT27/09/1995
BENCH:
AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)
BENCH:
AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 717 1995 SCC (6) 464
JT 1995 (7) 129 1995 SCALE (5)609
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
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 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.
The appellant filed a Writ Petition which has been dismissed
by the High 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
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
of the High Court dismissing the writ petition of the
appellant cannot, therefore, be upheld.
The 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.