Delhi High Court
Smt. Maya Devi vs Family Welfare Planning Centre & ... on 16 December, 2010
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) No. 5517/2002
% 16th December, 2010
SMT. MAYA DEVI ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate
with Mr. Sitab Ali
Chaudhary, Advocate.
VERSUS
FAMILY WELFARE PLANNING CENTRE & OTHERS .... Respondents
Through: Mr. H.R. Gangwani,
Advocate for the respondent
No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By the present petition, the petitioner who was working as a Safai
Karamchari of the respondent no.1, a Family Welfare Planning Centre, seeks
the relief of regularization of her services with all consequential benefits.
2. On behalf of the respondent no.1, it is urged that the petition is liable
to be dismissed for two reasons. The first reason is stated that the funding
of the welfare organization is in fact almost wholly by individual
officers/airmen and the Government does not in any manner fund the
respondent no.1. It is, therefore, argued that the respondent no.1 is not a
State as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the writ
petition is not maintainable. Per contra the counsel for the petitioner urged
that the payment of the petitioner is being partly funded by the Union of
India and therefore, it should be held that the respondent no.1 is a State.
3. I am afraid I am not able to agree with the contention of the petitioner
that the respondent no.1 is a State. A statement has been made by the
counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, today, on instructions from Wing
Commander Mr. Mujeed, Station Officer (looking after the respondent no.1)
that the entire funding of the welfare organization is by the individual officers
and the respondent no.1 welfare organization does not get any funding from
the Union of India. Clearly therefore, the respondent no.1 is not a State. Of
course, part of the salary, which is given to the petitioner is also coming from
the Union, however, the same would not mean that the petitioner is an
employee of the Union, because, the case of the petitioner herself is that she
is an employee of the respondent no.1, welfare organization and in any case
at the best some funding only of respondent No.1 would be from Union of
India. Useful reference in this behalf may be made to the case of R.R. Pillai
Vs. Commanding Officer, Headquarters Southern Air Command (U)
and Others 2009 (13) SCC 311 in which it was held that employees of the
Unit Run Canteens are not government employees. The respondent No.1 in
this case would be similar to Unit Run Canteens as it is basically funded by
the individual officers/Airmen.
4. The second reason advanced for dismissal of the petition is that in
terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State
of Karnataka & Ors. Vs Uma Devi (3) & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1, there
cannot be regularization of the services of those persons who have not been
appointed against substantial posts. In the present case, inasmuch as the
respondent no.1 is not a State and in any case it does not have any
sanctioned post of a part time Safai Karamchari (the petitioner was
appointed in terms of a letter which described her as a part-time safai
karamchari) it cannot be said that the same is therefore a duly sanctioned
vacant post as stated by the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) in
para 53 of the said judgment. I am of the opinion that in view of Uma
Devi's case, the petitioner unfortunately is not entitled to any relief in the
present case.
5. In view of the above, I have no option but to dismiss the writ petition,
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
C.M.No.9382/02 in W.P.(C) No.5517/2002
Interim orders stand vacated.
Application stands disposed of.
DECEMBER 16, 2010 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
