*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C)23/2000
% Date of decision: 28th April, 2010
BHARAT SINGH ..... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. N. Kinra, Advocate
Versus
INDIAN AIRLINES & ANR. ..... RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr. Ratna Dhingra & Ms. Shreya
Sharma, Advocates
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CM No.8536/2009 (for restoration of the petition dismissed for non prosecution on 20th May, 2009) The counsel for the petitioner was on 9th March, 2010 informed that the application for restoration of the writ petition shall be considered only when the counsel is also prepared to argue the writ petition on merits. The counsel has today addressed on the merits of the writ petition. The application is accordingly allowed for the reasons stated therein and the writ petition is restored to its original position. WP(C)23/2000 Page 1 of 5 WP(C)23/2000
1. The counsel for the respondent Indian Airlines has at the outset informed that consequent to the merger of Indian Airlines with Air India, National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL) has been formed and the said NACIL is to be now substituted in place of the respondents. Accordingly, NACIL is substituted in place of the respondent Indian Airlines.
2. The counsels for the parties have been heard.
3. The petitioner was appointed as a casual worker for the post of Typist / Office Assistant for a period of 89 days in the respondent on 12th December, 1991. It is the case of the petitioner that his services were not extended and the respondents continued to engage outsiders in complete violation of the 'last-in-first-go' principle; on representation of the petitioner, he was again appointed for 89 days from 18 th May, 1994 and again for 89 days from 17th August, 1995. The petitioner claims to have so worked with intermittent breaks up to April, 1997. The petitioner thereafter filed WP(C) No.1803/1997. It appears that the said writ petition was tagged along with several other writ petitions pending with similar grievance. Certain interim directions were issued in the writ petition filed by the petitioner where-under the petitioner continued to work with the respondents. The said writ petition filed by the WP(C)23/2000 Page 2 of 5 petitioner along with the other writ petitions entailing the similar questions was decided on 21st August, 1998.
4. The respondents dispensed with the services of the petitioner on 24th September, 1998. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents did not even prepare any panel in accordance with the judgment dated 21st August, 1998 and continued to engage freshers / outsiders much junior to the petitioner on casual basis. Ultimately, the present petition came to be filed. The petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to prepare a panel of casual workers in the category of Office Assistant / Typist according to seniority and to quash the order dispensing with the services of the petitioner and to engage the petitioner in employment.
5. From the averments in the petition, it stands established that the petitioner was merely a casual worker and had not been employed with the respondents in accordance with the recruitment rules / policies of the respondents. The relief sought by the petitioner is in the nature of converting his casual employment with the respondents to a regular employment. It was enquired from the counsel for the petitioner whether the claim in the petition was not contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi AIR 2006 SC 1806. The Supreme Court in the said judgment held that the Court should not grant a relief which would amount to perpetuating the WP(C)23/2000 Page 3 of 5 illegality of casual employment in government offices / public sector undertakings. It was further held that unless the appointment is in terms of relevant rules, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. A temporary employee was held to be not entitled to maintain a claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It was further held that by mere long service an ad-hoc employee did not acquire any right to permanent employment.
6. In so far as the first relief claimed by the petitioner of issuance of direction to the respondent to prepare a panel of casual workers in accordance with the judgment dated 21st August, 1998 in the earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioner is concerned, the said judgment was based on the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh (1992) 4 SCC 118 and which is no longer good law after the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (supra). The counsel for the petitioner could not really dispute the said legal position. He only contends that the respondent continued to casually employ others, junior to the petitioner and which action of the respondent is contended to be arbitrary / inhuman. It is contended that the respondent has attempted to hijack the life of the petitioner. The petitioner has not pleaded or given any particulars of any arbitrariness. Upon the same being put to the counsel for the petitioner, he states that since the respondent has not made available the panel as per seniority of casual WP(C)23/2000 Page 4 of 5 employees, the petitioner is unable to plead / give any particulars. The said argument of the petitioner is not found convincing.
7. The counsel for the respondent has urged that though this Court had in judgment dated 21st August, 1998 in the earlier writ petition directed drawing up of the panel but that was of the year 1990 and which panel was drawn and in which the name of the petitioner does not figure; accordingly the question of engaging him as a casual worker also did not arise.
8. However, in view of the legal position settled by the Constitution Bench in Umadevi's case, need is not felt to go into the said question. There is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 28th April, 2010 gsr WP(C)23/2000 Page 5 of 5