Back
2015 Supreme(All) 2489
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rakesh Tiwari, Vijay Lakshmi, JJ.
Gopal Prasad - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. - Respondent
Special Appeal (Defective) No. 149 of 2015
Decided On : 16-02-2015
For the Appellant : Alok Mishra
For the Respondents: C.S.C.
Temporary, contractual, casual, ad-hoc, or daily-wage employees have no right to regular or permanent public employment, as established in the landmark judgment Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1.
Headnote:
Temporary Employee - Absorption in Public Employment - The court dismissed the appeal of a temporary employee seeking absorption in public employment, citing the legal principle that temporary, contractual, casual, ad-hoc, or daily-wage employees have no right to regular or permanent public employment, as established in the landmark judgment Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a temporary employee, sought absorption in public employment after being appointed on various temporary posts. His request was rejected, and his writ petition challenging the rejection was dismissed by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant, being a temporary employee, had no right to be absorbed in public employment, citing the legal principle established in the Uma Devi case and subsequent cases. The court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it.
Issues: The issue revolved around the appellant's claim for absorption in public employment as a temporary employee and the rejection of his request by the authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that temporary, contractual, casual, ad-hoc, or daily-wage employees have no right to regular or permanent public employment, as established in the Uma Devi case and reiterated in subsequent cases, and found no illegality in the decision of the writ court.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed by the court, upholding the rejection of the appellant's request for absorption in public employment.
Vijay Lakshmi, J.
1. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.12.2014, passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36613 of 1998, whereby writ court has dismissed the writ petition. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and have perused the records.
2. The petitioner appellant was appointed on the post of Peon on daily wages in the Office of District Election Officer, Ballia from 21.5.1988 to 15.7.1988. Again he was given a temporary post of Peon in the same office from 2.11.1988 to 15.12.1988. Once again he was given a temporary post of Junior Clerk in the same office from 23.9.1989 to 31.12.1989. On 26.3.1990, the said appointment of the petitioner-appellant was cancelled. The petitioner-appellant moved a representation to the effect that he being a retrenched employee, he be absorbed in the services, which was rejected by the authority concerned vide order dated 27.11.1997 on the ground that there is no provision for recruiting the retrenched employees directly to any post by absorbing them to such post and in absence of any such provision or any Government order, the petitioner-appellant cannot be absorbed on any post in Census Department. The aforesaid order dated 27.11.1997 was challenged by the petitioner-appellant by way of Writ Petition No. 36613 of 1998, which was dismissed by the writ court by the order reproduced below, which has been impugned in this appeal:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
Petitioner herein, was engaged as a temporary peon for short period in the District Census Office, when the exercise for census was undertaken. He was appointed as clerk but the said appointment was cancelled vide order dated 26.3.1990, and he was reverted to the post of Peon on the same terms, on which he was working. His claim for absorption was rejected vide order dated 27.11.1997 on the ground that he was claiming absorption on the post of clerk, whereas there was no such provision. The petitioner has not challenged the order dated 26.3.1990. reverting him to the post of Peon. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner has continued to work on the post of peon whether in temporary or in other capacity after 1996. There is already a stipulation in the order dated 27.11.1997 that his case would be considered as per rules, if permissible.
I do not find any valid ground for granting any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed."
3. The petitioner-appellant being a daily wager and a temporary employee in Census Department has no right to such post or to be absorbed on any post whether Class III or Class IV in view of the landmark judgment Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 (5) AWC 5325 (SC), decided by seven Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in which the Apex Court, overruling all its previous judgment having contrary view has laid down the law as under:
"...a temporary, contractual, casual, ad-hoc or daily-wage employee have no right to regular or permanent public employment. The absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, ad-hoc or daily-wage employees appointed/recruited de hors the constitutional scheme of public employment on issuance of directions by court will amount to create another mode of public appointment which is not permissible."
4. The law laid down in Uma Devi's case (supra) has been reiterated in several other subsequent cases by Hon'ble Apex Court.
5. In State of U.P. v. Rekha Rani, (2011) 11 SCC 441 , it has observed as under:
"The respondent is only a temporary employee. High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution cannot regularise an employee merely because some others had been regularised does not give any right to respondent. An illegality cannot be perpetuated."
6. The Apex Court recently in School Edu
