Shri Pramod Kumar vs New Delhi Municipal Council
2009 Latest Caselaw 3031 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C) No. 10686/2009

%                 Date of Decision: 06th August, 2009


# SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR
                                                  ..... PETITIONER
!                 Through: Mr. Anuj Agarwal, Advocate

                                VERSUS

$ NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
                                                       .....RESPONDENT

^                 Through: Nemo.

CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper 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 in the Digest?NO

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) This writ petition filed by the workman is directed against an award

dated 29.08.2008 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator rejecting his claim

for reinstatement and back wages.

2. Heard.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Beldar/Khalasi on daily wages in

N.D.M.C. on 03.08.2005 for a specific purpose and he was allegedly

terminated on 15.10.2005. He, aggrieved by his termination raised an

industrial dispute and claimed his reinstatement and back wages.

4. The petitioner was admittedly not appointed against any vacant

post or after following the procedure laid down for filling up of vacant

post of Beldar/Khalasi in N.D.M.C. A person who has hardly worked for

about 2 months has no legal right to ask for his reinstatement or

regularisation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of

Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi and others JT 2006 (4) SC

420 has categorically held that daily wagers have no legal right to ask for

their regularization in Government service.

5. Since in the present case, the petitioner had got back-door entry as

daily wager with N.D.M.C. and had worked only for about two months

before he was allegedly terminated, he cannot be said to have acquired a

legal right either for his reinstatement or for regularization.

6. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the

impugned award given by the Industrial Adjudicator that may call for an

interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution. This writ petition, therefore, fails

and is hereby dismissed in limine.

AUGUST 06, 2009                                         S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'