Durgesh Kumar Nayak vs The Principal Judge, Family ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 861 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    WP(C) No.3374/2011 with CM No.7052/2011 &
                     CM No.7050/2011

%                                                     February 20, 2013

      DURGESH KUMAR NAYAK                  ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Adv.


                          versus

      THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DWARKA
                                              ..... Respondent

Through: Dr.Rajeshwar Rao, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner who was

admittedly appointed only as an adhoc employee seeks the application of

doctrine of "last come first go". Originally in the writ petition, various

reliefs were claimed including of regularization, but since in view of the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka

& Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1, adhoc employees cannot be

regularized, it could not be disputed on behalf of the petitioner that the

petitioner who was not appointed against a specific permanent post cannot

get regularization because, the ratio of Umadevi & Ors. (supra) will clearly

come into play.

2. Learned Single Judge of this Court noted all these detailed

aspects in the order dated 1.6.2011, and therefore, today the issue is limited

to application of the doctrine of "last come first go".

3. Counsel for the petitioner argues the application of doctrine of

"last come first go" inasmuch as with respect to two persons, one Sh.

Mangal Ram as stated in ground (e) of the petition and one Sh. Rajesh

Kumar given at serial No. 19 in a list dated 4.4.2011 filed as Annexure E to

the counter affidavit are still said to be working with the respondent.

4. Counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, however

states that neither Sh. Rajesh Kumar nor Sh. Mangal Ram are on the roll of

service of respondent as on date, and in fact, Sh. Rajesh Kumar is now an

employee of a private contractor who is providing services to the

respondent. Therefore it is clear that neither Sh. Mangal Ram nor Sh.

Rajesh Kumar are the employees of the respondent, and therefore, since

these persons are not in service of the respondent the issue of applicability of

doctrine of "last come first go" will have no application because there are no

persons who have been appointed later than the petitioner and who continue

to be in service with the respondent as adhoc employees.

5. The writ petition and all pending applications are accordingly

dismissed in view of the aforesaid observations.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J FEBRUARY 20, 2013 ak