IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
Saroj Kumar Nayak & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation On India Limited - Respondent
W.P.(C) 5453 of 2020, CM Nos. 19659 of 2020 & 340 of 2021
Decided on : 21-06-2021
Service Law - Contractual employment - Regularization of Service and consequential reliefs - Engagement renewed from time to time with artificial breaks - Some of petitioners also given appointment on higher posts - Whether can be regularized.
Finding of the Court: Petitioners 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 having applied for appointment to various posts pursuant to a notification of 2019 and being unsuccessful (except one petitioner who is in waiting list), the reliefs as prayed cannot be granted - Casual Labourers are Group-D employees whose regularization was effected under the scheme evolved by the Government of India known as Casual Labourers (grant of temporary status and regularization) Scheme, 1993. From the perusal of the said scheme, it is clear that the same is applicable to Group-D employees only, whereas the petitioners herein are working on Group-C posts, hence the said scheme has no applicability -Respondent had in 2019 issued notification for making appointments on the posts on which the petitioners are working on contract basis. The petitioners instead of applying for the posts they are working, applied for higher posts and were unsuccessful; they cannot now contend that they should be considered for regularization on the posts on which they are currently working. - Petitioners are unsuccessful in getting regular appointment pursuant to notification of 2019.
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by eight persons with the following prayers:
“In view of the facts narrated and grounds set out in this writ petition, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to
(b) issue a writ in the nature mandamus or any other suitable writ or direction or order directing the respondents to consider the case for regularization from the very date of initial engagement and afford the petitioners the consequential reliefs, such as pay and allowances, annual increments, leave and leave encashment and other benefits which may be granted in accordance the provisions of the VII Pay Commission recommendations as admissible to the regular employees of the TRIFED, of corresponding post.
This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to meet the ends of justice.”
2. It is the case of the petitioners that their initial engagement on contract basis was in the years 2010/2011 on the post of Assistant Grade-I (now Senior Assistant) and Clerk (now called as Junior Assistant) through a selection process which is undertaken for making regular appointment. Their engagement was renewed from time to time with artificial breaks. Some of the petitioners were also given appointment on higher posts. Though, the appointments were with the nomenclature “on contract basis” but for all purposes it was a regular appointment except the fact that the remuneration that is being paid, is not that of a regular appointee.
3. The cause of action for them to approach this Court by way of this petition was triggered on the issuance of notification dated November 09, 2019 by the respondent whereby the respondent advertised the filling up various posts on direct recruitment basis. These posts include that of Deputy Manger, Sales Executive, Senior Accountant, etc. It is their case that as they are eligible and have been performing their duties sincerely/diligently hence are entitled to be regularized on the posts on which they are working. According to them, they now being overage for any job outside the respondent organization, the respondent should regularize their services. They have referred to the various representations made by them requesting the authorities in the respondent organization, for regularization of their services. Unfortunately, the same have not been replied to. It is averred in the petition that legal advice was sought on the aspect of regularizing the services of the petitioners, wherein it is opined, that the petitioners past contractual services could well be reckoned for purposes of seniority and age limit shall not be a bar and precedents are available when in 2012 individuals who had temporary status were regularized.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent wherein it is stated that the respondent is a Multi State Cooperative Society under the administrative control of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs and is an organization engaged in marketing development of tribal products including tribal art & craft under the brand name “TRIBES INDIA”.
5. The main mandate of the respondent is to enhance the capability of the tribal community; promotion of tribal products and creation of marketing opportunities for them with a view to ensure fair prices for their products and augmenting their income on a sustainable basis.
6. It is stated that an advertisement was published in the Employment News dated 20 to 26 February, 2010 and in the Tribune, Himachal Pradesh dated April 23, 2011 whereby applications were invited from the eligible candidates for filling u
B. Nagarajan & Ors. v. State of Mysore (1966) 3 SCR 682;
Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. (1986) 1 SCC 637;
Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715;
U.P.S.C. v. Alpana (1994) 2 SCC 723;
Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana (2003) 5 SCC 604;
State of West Bengal v. Manas Kumar Chakraborty
U.P.S.C. v. Girish Jayanthi Lal Vaghela & Ors. (2006) 2 SCC 482;
Shailendra Dania v. S.P. Dubey & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 535;
State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436;
Sheo Narayan Nagar v. State of U.P. (2018) 13 SCC 432;
Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 618 ; and
Anuj Garg & Ors. v. Hotel Association of India & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 1
Avtar Singh Hit v. Delhi Gurudwara (2006) 8 SCC 487; and
Prabodh Verma & Ors. v. State of U.P.
Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bisht
Kumar Mayank v. Delhi Technological University & Anr.
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.