Allahabad High Court
Magarsen vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 21 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(2)AWC1712, [2002(94)FLR1158], (2002)IIILLJ924ALL, (2002)3UPLBEC2377
Author: S.K. Singh
Bench: S.K. Singh
JUDGMENT S.K. Singh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that oral order dated 1.6.1992, given by the respondent No. 3 by which petitioner was asked not to attend his duties, be declared Illegal and void. Further prayer has been made that respondents be commanded to allow the petitioner to continue on his post and to pay regular pay scale to the petitioner at par to the regularly appointed class IV employees.
3. Petitioner claims to have been appointed as daily wager Peon on 13th July, 1988 and according to him. he has been continuously working till 31.5.1992. It has been pleaded that as the work and conduct of the petitioner has been satisfactory and good, the petitioner has completed more than 240 days in every year, the action of the respondent in terminating the petitioner's services by oral order, is clearly Illegal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the continuous working of the petitioner from 13.7.1988 upto 31.5.1992, petitioner is entitled to continue and to receive regular pay scale. It has also been argued that junior person to the petitioner, viz., Indrapal and Anant Ram, etc. have been permitted to continue.
5. Learned counsel who appears for the respondents on the strength of the facts so stated in the counter-affidavit submits before this Court that :
(i) Petitioner was never engaged against any regular vacancy by adopting any regular process.
(ii) Petitioner has never worked for more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year.
(iii) Petitioner was disengaged due to shrinkage of work in the department on account of which large number of daily wage class IV employees were asked to go away.
(iv) The engagement of the petitioner was only for specific purpose as the work was extended due to Waste Land Mapping Scheme, 1987 and all the project being of short period. they ended by end of December, 1991.
6. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner was engaged by Remote Sensing Application Centre, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 which is a private body and is merely a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and, therefore, petitioner cannot lay any claim against the respondents.
7. In view of the aforesaid submissions as has come from both the sides, the pleadings as has been set forth before this Court have been examined. The petitioner has not filed copy of the appointment letter by which he claims his engagement as Class IV employee. On record, there is only experience certificate about the petitioner's working. In view of the fact as has come on record, it is crystal clear that petitioner was never engaged against the regular vacancy by taking recourse of the procedure which may have given chance to the large number of much meritorious persons to participate. It appears that under Waste Land Mapping Scheme, 1992, besides some other project, petitioner was engaged which ended after a short while. The petitioner has not placed any material before this Court that he has continuously worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, as the averments of the petitioner in this respect have been specifically denied by the respondents in para 5 of the counter-affidavit. The defence has been put forward by the respondents for the purpose of repelling the petitioner's claim is mainly contained in paras 4, 5, 7, 14 and 17 to the writ petition. The submission of the petitioner that Juniors have been permitted do not appear to be correct as it is only on account of some Interim order passed by this Court. During the course of the arguments also, petitioner has not placed before this Court any decision and final adjudication demonstrating the juniors to the petitioner to be working. As the petitioner was never appointed on regular vacancy by taking recourse to the process for appointment giving opportunity to every body, this Court feels that petitioner has no right to claim his continuance. On own showing of the petitioner, he was never given any appointment letter and he was just engaged on daily wages due to exigency of work which according to the respondents, in due course of time came to an end.
8. On the aforesaid premises, petitioner is not entitled to get any relief by this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the parties will bear their own costs.