(JULY 31, 2001) 2001 (TLS)125258

2001-DLT-94-90 :: 2001-AD (Del)-6-863

REKHA ARORA Vs. Chairman, National Commission for Scheduled Castes/scheduled Tribes

VIKRAMAJIT SEN

( 1 ) IN the present writ petition the Petitioner s alleged termination of services by the Respondent is under challenge. The facts of-the case are that by order dated 4/9/1995 the Petitioner was appointed as a hindi Stenographer "on purely. ad-hoc basis in the scale of pay RS. 1200-30-1560-EB-40-2040 for a period of 89 days with effect from 23/8/1995 to 19/11/1995 or until further orders, whichever is earlier". In the Order it is further clarified that this appointment shall not confer any claim for regular appointment. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner continued in service till 17/2/1997, that is, one and a half years from her initial period of engagement. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that no rights exist in favour of the Petitioner for claiming regularisation of service or even continuance of service. I am unable to accept this argument as carrying any weight for the dismissal of the Petition. Attention must be drawn to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court In Gujarat agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar % Ors. 2001 1 A. D. (S. C.) 327, the Hon ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

"in fact, taking work, from daily wage worker or ad hoc appointee is always viewed to be only for a short period or as a stop gap arrangement, but we find new culture is growing to continue with it for a long time, either for financial gain or for controlling its workers more effectively with sword of Damocles hanging over their heads or to continue with favoured one in the cases of ad. hoc-employee withstaling competent and legitimate climants. Thus we have no hesitation to denounce this practice. If the work is of such a nature, which has to be taken continuously and in any case when this pattern become apparent, when they continue to work for year after year, only option to the employer is to regularise them. Financial viability no doubt is one of the considerations but then such enterprise, or institution should not- spread its arms longer than its means. . The consequent corollary is, where work is taken not for a short period or limited for a season or where work is not of part time nature and if pattern shows work is to be taken continuously year after year, there is no justification to keep such persons hanging as daily rate workers. In such situation a legal obligation is cast on art employer if there be vacant post to fill it up with such workers in accordance with rules if any and where necessary by relaxing the qualifications, where long experience could be equitable with such qualifications. If no post exists then duty is cast to assess the quantum of such work and create such equivalent post for their absorption. "

( 2 ) IF the Petitioner had still been in service, some relief may have been moulded in her favour. The prayers as they exist in the writ petition, however, are difficult to grant at this stage. Be that as it may what has further transpired is that on 17/2/1997 the petitioner had proceeded on leave. In the writ petition it has been stated that this was on maternity leave, but on a perusal of her application this statement does not appear to be entirely correct. All that has been stated by her is that the reason for leave is "for health check up and test". It does not even vaguely indicate that the petitioner was pregnant. It has been conveniently alleged that this fact was orally conveyed to her senior officer. Even in her subsequent letter dated 24/2/1997 the Petitioner did not indicate that she intended to avail of maternity leave and what was stated was that the doctor has advised her rest for a few more days.

( 3 ) THE Petitioner appears to have reported back for duty on 7/5/1997 on which date she had filed Certificate of Jeevan Jyoti Clinic and Nursing Home. Strangely this certificate mentions that