Delhi High Court
Shri Satish Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 22 March, 2001
Author: . M Sharma
Bench: . M Sharma
ORDER
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1. The petitioner, who was working with respondent No. 2 as Casual Labourer seeks for an order from this court restraining the respondents to dis-engage the petitioner from employment as Casual Labourer as he has completed more than 306 days of work and also for a declaration that since he has completed 240 working days he should be regularised in his services in any vacancy which is available.
2. The petitioner contends that he was initially employed as a Casual Labourer on 21.5.1998 in which post he worked upon 15.9.1998 and that after a few days' break he was re-employed on 12.10.1998 when he worked up to 3.2.1999. Again he was re-employed on 19.3.1999 and he worked up to 29.7.1999. He was again re-employed on the basis of a letter of demand sent to the Employment exchange from 18.10.1999 and continuing to work as a Casual, daily-wage class IV employee. It is stated in the writ petition that since he was told that he is being dis-engaged from 11th February, 2000 that he filed the present writ petition seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
3. The respondents contested the aforesaid writ petition and filed a counter affidavit contenting inter alia that the works for which the petitioner was engaged are not of permanent nature. It was also stated herein that the petitioner was never engaged continuously for a period of 306 days or 240 days but he was engaged with breaks in different spells as and when his services were required as a Casual Labourer for performing the duties of Waterman during summer season and for dusting and shifting of records etc. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that the respondents have altogether 40 sanctioned posts of Peons in that department and that all the direct requirement vacancies have since been filled up as per Recruitment Procedure issued from time to time from the Government of India. It is also stated that as and when any new project emerges, the daily waged workers are to be engaged in accordance with the Government of India instructions whereby fresh panel of candidates are to be obtained from the local Employment Exchange after sending requisition forms, whereupon the candidates would be interviewed by the Selection Board constituted by the Head of the Department and the selected candidates would be engaged as daily waged workers until the project work was over. It is also stated that in view of the interim order passed by this court the petitioner is being retained in service although there is no regular work for him.
4. During the course of arguments, the counsel appearing for the parties relied upon their respective pleadings. Counsel for the petitioner however, could not place before me any order of appointment passed by the respondent appointing the petitioner as a Casual Labourer and none of the orders appointing the petitioner as Casual Labourer in placed on record. However, the fact that the petitioner had worked with the respondent as a Casual Labourer intermittently with breaks is not disputed. The specific stand of the respondent in the counter affidavit which is reiterated by the counsel for the respondent during the course of his arguments is that the work for which the petitioner was engaged were the duties of waterman during summer season and for dusting and shifting of records etc. which are not of permanent nature.
The watermen are to be engaged only during the summer season. So far the works of dusting and shifting of records etc. are concerned the same are stated to be not of permanent nature. Although the said stand is disputed, this court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot enter into such disputed questions of fact. It is also specifically stated in the counter affidavit that there are altogether 40 sanctioned posts of Peons and that all the direct recruitment vacancies have been filled up in terms of the recruitment procedure issued by the Government of India from time to time. The only work that is available according to the respondent is that of a Casual daily-wage worker as and when a new project is sanctioned or emerges. The petitioner has not been able to contradict the aforesaid stand of the respondent by producing any supporting/convincing documents to hold otherwise. Unless there is a regular post no order could be passed either for regularisation of the petitioner in the service or to grant him the status of temporary staff. No regularisation could be ordered in respect of jobs which are of casual nature and not of permanent and regular nature. Therefore, no relief could be granted to the petitioner in terms of the prayer made in the writ petition.
5. In view of the observations made above, the writ petition stands disposed of. The interim order stands vacated. There will be no order as to costs. It is however, ordered that as and when there is a regular vacancy in the post of Peon the case of the petitioner shall be considered provided there is an application by him in respect of such a vacancy and in the event of filing of such an application his case shall be considered on merits giving due weightage to the service that he has rendered with the respondent, and also giving relaxation in respect of age for the period he had worked with the respondents.
