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.