Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
3. The Respondents in their counter-reply filed on
24.10.2014 submitted that the applicant has been working as a
2
O.A.No.438 of 2014
Contingent Waterman since 1.4.1988 at the Rairangpur H.O. His
job is to supply water to thirty staff of Rairangpur H.O. and his
working hour is 2 hrs. 24 minutes fixed according to norms of
one Waterman in Group-D cadre. The applicant is being paid
remuneration on pro rata basis according his workload and
since he does not work for at least 8 hours a day, he is not
entitled to conferment of temporary status as per the
departmental rules and guidelines. The applicant was not
recruited through the Employment Exchange and therefore,
cannot be conferred with temporary status since his
appointment is irregular. There are two other casual labourers
who are engaged for more than 8 hours per day and they are
eligible for getting exemption or sponsorship from Employment
Exchange and are eligible for conferment of temporary status.
The Respondents have cited the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi
[2006 AIR SCW 1991] in which it has been held "employment
on daily wages/temporary/contractual employees does not
mean permanence in service. Those who are working on daily
wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that
they are discriminated as against those who have been
regularly recruited on the basis of relevant rules. No right can
be founded on employment on daily wages to claim that such
employees should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited
candidate, and made permanent in employment even assuming
3
O.A.No.438 of 2014
that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for
equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have
been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual
basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service.
They cannot be said to be holder of a posts since a regular
appointment could be made only by making appointments
consistent with the requirements of Arts. 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. The right to be treated equal with the other
employees employed on daily wages cannot be extended to a
claim for equally treatment with those who are regularly
employed. That would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot
also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even
though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant
recruitment rules".