High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Saran v. Managing Director, U.P. State Bridge Corp. And Others - WRIT - A No. 60919 of 2005  RD-AH 27 (1 January 2005)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard Sri Shyam Prakash Srivastava, counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.N. Rai for the respondents.
The petitioner was appointed on the post of Welder on daily wage basis in December, 1979 in the State Bridge Corporation at Bareilly. He was appointed as work charge employee w.e.f.1.4.1988. The grievance of the petitioner is that some of the persons, who were appointed much after him have been regularized in service but he has been ignored and his services have not been regularized though he has completed about 26 years continuous service. He has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize him and to give him the regular pay scale since 1998, i.e., 22.12.1998- the date from which his juniors are said to have been regularized.
Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in paragraph 25 of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others- A.I.R. 1992 SC-2130 wherein it has been held that where work charge employee or casual labour continues in service for 2-3 years, a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, effort must be made to regularize his services as far as possible and as early as possible subject to his fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post and subject to availability of work.
There is no foundation or averment that the petitioner is qualified for the post and there is availability of work. He is seeking regularization only on the ground that some persons who are alleged to be junior to him have been regularized in service. Neither any rule nor prescribed qualifications for the post has been placed before the Court to arrive to a conclusion that the petitioner has any right or entitlement to the prayer made by him.
The counsel for the petitioner then placed reliance in Hindustan Machine Tools and others V. M. Rangareddy and others -(2001)1 UPLBEC-70 wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court relying upon paragraph 7 of the decision in Raj Narain Prasad and others v. State of U.P. and others- 1998(8) SCC-473 and referring to the observation made in paragraph 4 of the decision in Piyara Singh's case (supra) and in paragraph 4 of the decision in Niadar and another V. Delhi Administration and another-1992(4) SCC-112 held as under :-
"8. Tested on the touchstones of the principles laid down in the decisisons noted above and keeping in mind the mandate of the Constitution under Article 38(1), 39(e) and 43, we are of the considered view that the directions issued by the High Court to the appellants to frame a scheme for regularization of services of the writ petitioners does not warrant interference. However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Company is under financial constraints and has decided to reduce its work force, we would like to clarify that while framing the scheme it would be open to the appellant-Company and the officers concerned to assess the requirement of regular work force in its different units, particularly, the units in which the writ petitioners have been engaged over long periods and also the necessity for alleviation of the suffering to which the writ petitioners have been subjected to during all these years and fix the strength of work force so that the workers concerned are able to get the benefit of regular service within a reasonable time. It goes without saying that the absorption of the casual workers in regular service will be subject to fulfillment of the conditions of eligibility qualification with relaxation of the age prescribed under the rules."
As stated earlier, in the instant case, there is no averment in the writ petition regarding qualification of the petitioner or whether there is any scheme framed by the employers for regularization of service. Hence, the case of Hindustan Machine Tools and others (supra) does not help the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner next placed reliance upon the decision in Vimla Singh (Smt.) Vs. Chief Engineer (East Zone) and others- (2004)2 UPLBEC-2092 wherein it has been held that regularization of a project employee cannot be directed by the High Court. However, a direction was issued to decide the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order.
In the instant case, no representation has been made by the petitioner, hence no direction can be issued. Even otherwise, law is well settled by Hon'ble the Apex Court that High Court cannot issue direction for regularization of the services of an employee in writ jurisdiction. Reference, in this regard may be had to the case of State of Punjab and others V. Sardara Singh-(1998)9 SCC-709 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered whether the relief of regularization can be granted by High Court and held that the High Court cannot issue direction for regularization of daily wagers but can only direct the State Government to frame a scheme for regularization and where the scheme has already been framed, it can only direct for regularization in accordance with the said scheme.
For the reasons stated above, and in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others V. Sardara Singh (supra) this Court cannot issue direction for regularization of the petitioner, as prayed for by him in the writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.