Bharat Singh vs Indian Airlines & Anr
2010 Latest Caselaw 2272 Del

           *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

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

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

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

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