High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Hari Om Prakash Gautam v. Union Of India & Others - WRIT - A No. 40124 of 2000  RD-AH 10136 (25 May 2007)
Reserved on 1.5.2007
Delivered on 25.5.2007
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.40124 of 2000
Hari Om Prakash Gautam
Union of India and others
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Aggrieved by the order dated 20th May 1997 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dismissing Original Application No.387 of 1992 of the petitioner and also order dated 5th July 2000 rejecting his review application, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The brief facts giving rise to the present dispute, as stated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis on 18th February 1987 to discharge the duties of Draftsman. His service was dispensed with vide order dated 3rd April 1989. Respondent no.3 sent another letter dated 10th April 1989/17th April 1989 intimating the petitioner that he has already been informed vide letter dated 3rd April 1989 that his services are no longer required, therefore, he should not come to the office. The letter further stated that the petitioner has no right to claim regularisation on the post of Draftsman. The petitioner thereafter filed Original Application No.37 of 1990 before the Tribunal challenging order dated 10th April 1989. The Tribunal held that being a daily wage employee, the petitioner has only right to be considered as and when there is any vacancy of daily wager in the office. Consequently the original application was partly allowed vide order dated 11th March 1991. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below:-
"In the result, we allow this petition in part and direct opp. Parties to consider the applicant for appointment as daily rated worker as also Draftsman (Civil) Gr.III in accordance with Rules as and when the vacancy arises hereinafter. The parties are left to bear their own costs."
The petitioner thereafter again was allowed to join as daily wage Draftsman on 10th January 1992. In the meantime on 13th October 1990 respondents published 22 posts of Draftsman (Civil) Grade-III to be filled in by direct recruitment where-against the petitioner made a representation that he may be considered for absorption against one of the said vacancies. However, respondents directed the petitioner to appear in the recruitment test where-against he again filed Original Application No.387 of 1992 before the Tribunal. The said Original Application has been dismissed by the Tribunal holding that being daily wage employee he has no right of regularisation on the post of Draftsman unless he is selected after passing requisite examination of Drafltsman (Civil) Grade-III. In para 7 of the judgement the Tribunal has observed as under:-
"7. In the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, we are satisfied that the applicant who has not passed the required examination for appointment on the post of Draftsman 'Civil' grade III has acquired any right by mere working as daily worker on daily rate basis for being regularised as Draftsman. That being so, we find no merit in this application and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs."
The petitioner thereafter filed a review application against the aforesaid order, the same has also been rejected by the Tribunal, hence this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs Piara Singh and others - 1992 (4) SCC 118, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for regularisation having worked on daily wage basis for a long time. However, we do not find any force in the aforesaid submission. The matter of regularisation and the right of daily wage employees, who have worked for some time or for sufficiently long time, has recently been considered by a Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others - 2006 (4) SCC 1. It has been held by Apex Court that appointment made without advertisement is illegal and therefore cannot be regularised at all since it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution which is basic feature of the Constitution. It has been followed and reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh v. L.K. Verma - 2007 (1) SCC 575, Municipal Corporation Jabalpur v. Om Prakash Duney - 2007 (1) SCC 373, State of U.P. v. Desh Raj - 2007 (1) SCC 257, National Institute of Technology and others v. Neeraj Kumar Singh - 2007 (2) SCC 481, Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Chandigarh v. Manmohan Singh and others.
In view of aforesaid binding precedent and law laid down by the Apex Court, we do not find any reason to take a different view than what has been observed by the Tribunal in the order impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.