Delhi High Court
Hari Shankar And Ors. vs Bihar Bhavan on 21 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998 (47) DRJ 372
Author: K Ramamoorthy
Bench: K Ramamoorthy
JUDGMENT
K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The Bihar Bhavan in Delhi had been put up for the benefit of the officials coming down from the State of Bihar on governmental duties to Delhi. In Bihar Bhavan, in or about June or July, 1990, the post of Officer on Special Duty to the Chief Minister, the State of Bihar, was created. One Mr. H.P. Singh was appointed as Officer on Special Duty to the Chief Minister of Bihar. The petitioners were appointed on daily-wages basis to work as peons to that Officer on Special Duty for three months along with two others. The Officer on Special Duty to the Chief Minister of Bihar continued to function and, therefore, further extensions were granted from time to time to the petitioners.
2. In July, 1991, the post of Officer on Special Duty to the Chief Minister of Bihar was abolished by order dated the 15th of July, 1991. Consequently, the services of the petitioners, working on daily-wages basis as peons, stood automatically terminated.
3. This is challenged by the petitioners on various grounds. According to the petitioners, the judgment of the Supreme Court in "State of Haryana and Ors., etc. etc., v. Piara Singh and Ors. etc. etc.,", would apply to the facts of this case and the order passed by the respondents is liable to be set aside. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent No. 1, the Resident Commissioner, Bihar Bhavan, had appointed, after the termination of services of the petitioners, some persons as casual labourers and, therefore, the Bihar Bhavan required persons to work as peons. Therefore, the Bihar Bhavan should have given appointment to the petitioners. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Bihar Bhavan should have followed the principle of 'last come, first go'.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.K. Rai also relied up on the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in "Prem Singh v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and Anr.", 1989 (1) SLR 435 and also judgment of this Court in "Daulat Ram Sethi v. The Union of India and Ors.", 1977 LAB (NOC) 17 (Delhi).
5. The facts in those cases are entirely different. The petitioners were employed only for a particular purpose and once the post (Officer on Special Duty) itself had been abolished and when the services of the petitioners to work for the OSD were not required, the petitioners cannot insist on their right to continue in service. The Supreme Court in "Director, Institute of Management of U.P. v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava", , had clearly laid down that the persons who have been appointed for a particular period cannot claim regularisation. The Bihar Bhavan is not a commercial establishment. The petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right that their services should be regularised.
6. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
7. There shall be no orders as to costs.
