Govind Singh Rana And Ors vs National Technical Research ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 96 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                          Date of Decision: January 07, 2013


+                      W.P.(C) 2412/2012

       GOVIND SINGH RANA AND ORS                     ..... Petitioners
                    Represented by: Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate
                    instructed by Mr.A.K.Trivedi, Advocate

                       versus

       NATIONAL TECHNICAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION
                                                   ..... Respondent
                    Represented by: Mr.Rajeev Mehra, A.S.G.
                    instructed by Ms.Barkha Babbar, Advocate
                    for UOI.


+                      W.P.(C) 2413/2012

       VINOD KUMAR AND ORS                            ..... Petitioners
                   Represented by: Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate
                   instructed by Mr.A.K.Trivedi, Advocate

                       versus

       NATIONAL TECHNICAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION
                                                     ..... Respondent
                    Represented by: Mr.Rajeev Mehra, A.S.G.
                    instructed by Ms.Barkha Babbar, Advocate
                    for UOI.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL



W.P.(C) 2412-13/2012                                             Page 1 of 4
 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners states that the writ petition is being pressed on the limited ground pertaining to the principle of 'last- come-first go'.

3. The writ petitioners are lowly paid class-IV employees engaged as casual labours in the various offices of National Technical Research Organisation.

4. They had to visit the Central Administrative Tribunal inasmuch as they found people employed much after them being absorbed in regular capacity and they be ignored even to be given employment as casual workers and instead others being engaged.

5. As regards issue of people being given regular employment, since the writ petition is being pressed on the limited issue of the applicability of the principle of last-come-first go, we need not delve into the relevant facts inasmuch as the inquiry may take us into the realm of the applicable Recruitement Rules and whether or not the writ petitioners applied when regular vacancies were notified. Restricting our discussion to last-come-first go, no decision holds that the said principle should not be followed in the matter pertaining to employment of lowly paid employees.

6. The Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2006(4) SCALE 197 Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi & Ors. prohibits the courts from issuing directions to regularize ad-hoc, temporary or daily wage employees in the absence of regular sanctioned posts. The said decision did not concern itself with the application of the principle of last-come-first go.

7. What the petitioners are trying to beseech this Court is as and when casual hands are needed, the respondents should ensure that if the need results in reduction of the man-power, 'last-come-first go principle' should be adopted; and when extra hands are again needed, the same persons be reinducted.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent urges that as of today the respondent is not employing any body on daily wage basis. The respondent is resorting to contract based appointments by directly inviting applications which are screened by screening committee and short listed candidates are employed on contract basis. In other words, the respondents are not resorting to employment through a contractor but are resorting to, as against a daily wage, a monthly lump-sum contract payment being made. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent states that the contractual appointment is being resorted to for one year duration.

9. Whatever be the duration of the contractual appointment, we see no reason as to why those who have served the organization as daily wage employees be not given preference over fresh hands. After all, experience matters in life.

10. We dispose of the writ petition issuing a mandamus to the respondents that henceforth while making contractual appointments preference should be given to those who have worked with the respondent as daily wage employees and even within the daily wage employees preference would be as per length of service rendered. In other words, with reference to its records the respondent would draw up a list of those who were given employment as daily wages with reference to the date on which initial daily wage appointment was given.

11. This would mean that some kind of a seniority list of daily wage employees would be drawn up. While making contract appointment, if found suitable, employment would be offered on contract basis giving preference to the old hands.

12. No costs.

13. Dasti.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

VEENA BIRBAL, J.

JANUARY 07, 2013 srb