Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iv) That the workman has never performed the duties of Garden Chaudhary and no such type of office order was ever issued by the competent authority. Therefore, the question of pay scale of Garden Chaudhary does not arise.

Therefore, the claim filed by the respondent-workman should have been rejected by Ld. Labour Court.

(v) That the recruitment rules for the post of Mali and Garden Chaudhry are totally deferent. Garden Chaudhary is not promotional post of Mali and moreover, qualifying the trade test is mandatory for the promotion to the post of Garden Chaudhary, the claim of the workman is totally baseless.

63. Based on the legal principles and judicial precedents, it is stated that a person cannot be entitled to a post merely because they were working in an officiating capacity, especially if they were not appointed following the prescribed recruitment rules and necessary qualifications.

64. The principles of equity and fairness must be balanced with the statutory requirements to ensure that appointments are made transparently and based on merit. Therefore, while the respondent workman‟s long service and performance in the role of Garden Chaudhary might merit consideration, his official appointment to the post must comply with the requisite recruitment rules and qualifications.

***
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the matter on the premise that the respondents are claiming to be appointed to the post of Garden Chaudharies without having qualifications as contemplated under the recruitment rules. No doubt on account of having worked as Garden Chaudharies on ad hoc basis for a number of years, the respondents may not be entitled to be appointed to the post of Garden Chaudharies contraiy to the recruitment rules, however, perusal of their petition which was filed in the High Court which was later on transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal whose order is impugned by the petitioner, reveals that what the respondents are demanding is only that the petitioner should pay the difference of wages of Malies/Chowkidars and that of Garden Chaudhary from the date the respondents have been performing the duties and responsibilities of Garden Chaudharies.

91. While deciding the issue, the Division Bench emphasized that the mere fact of performing duties of a higher post does not automatically entitle an employee to regularization. Regularization can only be granted in accordance with the recruitment rules governing such appointments. It must be based on the existence of sanctioned posts, recruitment rules, and the fulfillment of other statutory requirements.