Temporary employees, including daily wage labourers, have no right to seek permanency or regularization of services.

JUDGMENT :

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. The instant regular second appeal has been preferred by the State of Haryana against the judgment and decree dated 10.06.1997, passed by the learned District Judge, Ambala, whereby the judgment and decree dated 22.08.1994, passed by the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Ambala Cantt, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein, has been reversed and it has been held that Saran Lata is entitled to resume her duties and the order passed by defendant No. 2 is illegal, void and arbitrary, whereby she was terminated from her services, however, the appellants/defendants shall consider her case for regularization in terms of Instructions issued by the State of Haryana vide Instructions dated 27.05.1993, and on regularization, she shall be entitled to all consequential benefits as were given to the regular employees from the date of her services are regularized.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/re spondent was appointed as Labourer in the office of defendant No. 2/Commissioner Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt. On 01.08.1987 and worked upto 22.03.1991. The services of the plaintiff were dispensed with as the work for which she was engaged on daily wages was over. The said termination was challenged by the plaintiff by filing a suit before the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Ambala Cantt, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.08.1994, by recording the following findings:

“Admitted facts of the case are that the plaintiff was appointed as Labourer on daily wages. She worked with defendant no. 2 w.e.f. 1.8.1987 to 28.2.91 i.e. about 3½ years. Her services were terminated on 22.3.91 without affording any opportunity of being heard or serving any notice upon her. As per the plaintiff, she is entitled for regularisation of her services with back wages whereas the defendants have denied the same. Admittedly, no appointment letter was ever issued to the plaintiff and as such, the question of any terms and condition of her appointment cannot be determined. Termination order has also not been served upon the plaintiff as according to the defendant, no termination order was required to be served. Shri Sikand, counsel for the plaintiff argued that since the plaintiff has worked for more than three year continuously, therefore, she is entitled for regularisation of her services and her service cannot be terminated illegally and as such, she is entitled to be re-instated with the full back-wages and other benefits. To this effect, he placed reliance upon State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh, 1992 SC 2130 wherein it has been held that so far as the work-charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularise as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell say two or three years-a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularisation. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this court, security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job. In this behalf, we do commend the orders of the Government of Haryana (contained in its letter dated 6.4.1990 referred to hereinbefore) both in relation to work-charged employees as well as casual labour.” It is observed that in the aforesaid ease, Government of Haryana had decided to regularise the service of casual and daily wages employees who had completed 10 years of service by December, 31st, 1989 and the decision of Haryana Government was up-held by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the instant case, the plaintiff has put in service only about 3 years and as such, the case of the plaintiff is certainly on d