IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2003 (SS) OF 2001 Kailash Balumuki ……….Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and another. ….……….Respondents. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Gopal Narain, Brief Holder for the respondents. 14.7.2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopal Narain, Brief Holder for the respondents. 2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for an order of mandamus commanding the respondents to absorb the petitioner as permanent employee against its own order. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner moved an application on 4.1.1998 for the post of Part Time Sweeper before the respondent no. 2 on 4.1.1998. Thereafter, on 29.1.1999, he was issued an appointment letter vide its letter No. C.Z.E. (N) (Pra. Ni.) H.Z. 19B-13, as Part Time Sweeper on salary of Rs. 200/- per month for a period of 4.1.1999 to 31.3.1999. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were extended by the respondent no. 2 till further orders on 20.3.1999. After some times, respondent no. 1 / Additional Secretary U.P.S.E.B. issued a Government Order bearing No. 1651 / Ara / 09 / B / Rahegal / 13 N.G. (B)/1999 dated 26.4.1999 directing all the Executive Engineers of U.P.S.E.B. to call all Part Time Sweeper for interview so that they may be converted in Full Time Sweeper. Pursuant to that G.O., the petitioner moved an application on 24.5.1999 for regularization on his services on the post, he was working. In response to the said application, respondent no. 2 issued a Call Letter dated 17.7.99 to the petitioner calling him to appear in the interview going to be held on 20.7.1999, but on the said date, no interview took place and respondent no. 2 terminated the services of the petitioner vide letter bearing No. 588/Mu. Aa M.-19-B-13/Pra-Amu dated 30.7.1999 without assigning any reason. The contention of the petitioner is that one Pramod Kumar S/o Sri Guljari Lal, who had at all no concern with the department, has been appointed as Full Time Sweeper in pursuance of the G.O. dated 28.5.1999 without conducting any interview. 4. In order to file counter affidavit, respondent has been given time from time to time, but till date, no counter affidavit has been filed. 5. Perused the evidence available on the record. A perusal of the termination order shows that the services of the petitioner has been terminated from the afternoon of 30.7.1999 vide letter bearing No. 588 Mu.Aa. / Nai. / Mu. Aa. Ma. Pa. Ksha. -19B.13/Pra.Anu. dated 30.7.1999, but in the said letter, no reason, as to why the services are being terminated, has been given. Further, as per the petitioner a person namely Pramod Kumar, who had no concern with the department, has been appointed on the post of Full Time Sweeper, but the petitioner has been deprived of from the said benefit violating the G.O. dated 1651/Ara/09/B/Rahegal/13 N.G. (B)/1999 dated 26.4.1999. 6. In view of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in pursuance of the Government Order dated 1651/Ara/09/B/Rahegal/13 N.G. (B)/1999 dated 26.4.1999. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 14.7.2008 Rathour