SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(All) 1051

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D. K. Seth, J.
RAM SUNDAR YADAV - Appellant
Versus
THE REGIONAL SPORTS OFFICER, SPORTS STADIUM - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 4413 Of 1991
Decided On : 09/11/1997

Advocates Appeared:
Ajai Bhanot, DINESH DWIVEDI, RAKESH DWIVEDI, S.D.KAUTILYA

Daily wage employees who have worked continuously for a long time are entitled to regularisation of service.

Headnote:

REGULARISATION OF DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEES - SPORTS STADIUM, MEERUT - U. P. SPORTS ACT, 1972 - SECTIONS 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5) - EMPLOYEES WORKING ON DAILY WAGE BASIS FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME ARE ENTITLED TO REGULARISATION OF SERVICE.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, daily wage employees at the Sports Stadium, Meerut, for 7-8 years, sought regularisation of their service.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners had been working continuously for a long time in the same organization and had been granted bonus, indicating that they were treated as temporary employees working for a long period.

Issues: Whether daily wage employees who have worked continuously for a long time are entitled to regularisation of service.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision in Bhullar Nath Yadav v. Mayo Hall Sports Complex, Allahabad, where similarly situated petitioners were allowed to be absorbed in service and regularised. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to regularisation of service in light of the decision in Bhullar Nath Yadav.

Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to consider the question of absorption of the petitioners in the light of the decision in Bhullar Nath Yadav as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of the order.

D. K. SETH, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners allege that they have been working as daily wager in the Sports Stadium, meerut for about 7-8 years namely from 1982. Therefore, they claim that on account of their continuous work they should be given regular appointment.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Shri Ajai Bhanot Shri S. D. Kautilya contends that in similar circumstances this court had directed regularisation of service in same organisation at other region.

( 3 ) LEARNED Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that the petitioners have acquired any legal right for being absorbed. According to him, the petitioners are only daily wagers therefore they can not claim any right in their favour.

( 4 ) FROM the pleading of the writ petition it appears that the petitioners were working from time to time which is certified by a certificate dated 29-4-1983 being Annexure-1 to the writ petition. By another certificate dated 9-3-1990, Deputy Director Meerut had certified that the petitioners had been continuously working for about 10 years on daily wage basis. In a list of employees prepared on 12-6-1989 the names of the petitioners were also appearing at Sl. Nos. 10 and 12. By an order dated 20-11-1987 which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition, the pay of the daily wager employee were increased from Rs. 15 to Rs. 20/ -. By an order dated 1-11-1990 which is annexure-6 to the writ petition bonus was allowed to these employees including the petitioner no. 1 on account of his working for over 3 years continuously. Thus it appears that the petitioners had been working continuously for a long time in the same organisation The said fact had sought to be denied in the counter affidavit but no specific averment has been made in order to specifically deny the case made out in the writ petition. But it was admitted that the petitioners were being engaged on daily wage basis from time to time. In paragraph No. 12 of the counter affidavit it has been pointed out that the petitioners were working on daily wage basis but no assurance was given to them that they will be regularised or absorbed.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners had relied on the decision in the case of Bhullar Nath yadav and Ors. v. Mayo Hall Sports Complex, Allahabad and Ors. , 1990 (1) FLR 68 where in the petitioners in the said case who were similarly situated with the petitioners of the present writ petition, were allowed to be absorbed in the serive and regularised.

( 6 ) LEARNED Additional Chief Standing Counsel produces an order passed in Civil Appeal No. 5570 of 1993 arising out of S. L. P. (Civil) No. 12422 of 1993 State of U. P. and Ors. v. Ram sumendar and Ors. and contends that in a similar case the appeal was preferred and the said order has been passed therein In the said order it was observed that since already a scheme is prepared for regularising the employees concerned, the authority, as and when it decides to fill in the vacancies for the respective cadres, they would consider the petitioners case accordingly. In the S3id order it has been provided that respondents should give preference to those who are on panel under the Scheme.


( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners on the other hand relies on another judgment of this honble Court given in the case of Prem Chandra and Ors. v. Regional Sports Officer and Ors. in writ petition No. 3599 of 1991 disposed of on 12-8-1997, The said judgment has relied on the decision in the case of Bhullar Nath Yadav (supra) as well as in the case of Zakir Hussain v. Engineer-in Chief Irrigation reported in (1993) 1 UPLBEC 15 which also had placed reliance on the decision in the case of Bhullar Nath Yadav (supra ).

( 8 ) SO far as the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 5578 of 1993 is concerned, the ratio decided in the case of Bhullar Nath Yadav (supra) has not been referred to and tested. The order passed thereon cannot be said to have been overruled the decision in the case of Bhullar Nath Yadav (supra






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top