Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru ... on 12 January, 2021
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6042 of 2013
Petitioner :- Mahendra Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Transport Civil Sectt.Lko.&Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Akshat Srivastava,Alok Singh,Pradeep Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to amend the appointment order dated 03.02.2006 to reinstate the petitioner on Class IV post and to treat him as having been appointed on 17.09.1986 in compliance of judgment and order dated 23.07.2005; and to include the period from 17.09.1986 to 06.02.2006 as his total length of service.
The petition also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to regularize the petitioner from the date of initial appointment in the same manner at his juniors were regularized and to deduct GPF from his salary from the date of regularization till December, 2006, from December 2008 to September 2010 and from December 2012 onwards.
Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner vide order dated 28.05.1999 passed by Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow representation of the petitioner was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.6684 (SS) of 1999 which was allowed vide order dated 23.07.2005 with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith on Class IV post in the office of Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow/or in Additional Transport Officer, Sitapur where a post of Daftari is vacant.
Learned counsel has submitted that initially the aforesaid order was not complied with so the petitioner filed a contempt petition. Thereafter, the official respondent passed an order on 3/4.02.2006 (Annexure - 1) by which the petitioner has been reinstated. It is submitted that the petitioner was reinstated but the period of service of the petitioner from 17.09.1986 to 06.02.2006 has not been included for service benefits. It is also submitted that similarly situated persons who were junior to the petitioner have already been regularized.
Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has made a representation to the respondents requesting to amend the appointment order dated 03.02.2006 and for passing appropriate order in the light of judgment and order dated 23.07.2005 (supra) so that he may get the entire service benefits, including GPF deduction, from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement.
To support his argument, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of Hemanta Kumar Bhattacharjee v. Union of India & Ors. - AIR 1958 Cal 239.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by petitioner's counsel and submitted that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis as per exigency of work from 17.09.1986 to 12.01.1987 and again from 09.06.1989 to 08.09.1989 for three months respectively. It is submitted that the petitioner had not been appointed on adhoc basis against any permanent vacant post. It is submitted that the employees who have worked on daily wage basis, their daily wage service period has not been counted in their services, therefore, petitioner's period of daily wage service has not been counted while giving the order of reinstatement as per order dated 23.07.2005 (supra). It is submitted that the petitioner is being given all the allowances admissible by State Government from the date of his appointment and he has also been given promotion for the next post.
Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in view of the above, there is no occasion to issue any direction by invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit and be dismissed as such.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The issue involved in the writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated and regularization from the date of initial appointment i.e. 17.09.1986.
It is an admitted fact that initially the petitioner was appointed as daily wager as per exigency of work from 17.09.1986 to 12.01.1987 and again from 09.06.1989 to 08.09.1989 for three months respectively. He was not appointed against any permanent vacant post or on adhoc basis. Perusal of the impugned order shows that order dated 23.07.2005 (supra) has already been complied with and the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Peon/Chaukidar vide order dated 03.02.2006.
From perusal of the record, it is evident that claim of the petitioner that persons junior to him were regularized, therefore, he may also be regularized from the date of initial appointment, cannot be granted because those persons have subsequently been appointed on adhoc basis, however the petitioner was never appointed on adhoc basis. It is settled law that daily wage employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned post. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part-time/daily wage temporary employees.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.1.2021
nishant/-
