Back
2006 Supreme(UK) 592
2006 (2) U.D., 527
High Court of Uttaranchal
Rajeev Gupta, C.J. and Rajesh Tandon, J.
Executive Engineer, Kumaon Jal Sansthan, Nainital and another - Appellants
Vs.
Vinod lal Sah and others - Respondents
Special Appeal No. 72 of 2005,
decided on 27-10-2006.
Sri J.P. Joshi, Advocate for the appellants.
None for the respondents.
Engagement as part-time workers on fixed honorarium does not entitle individuals to claim regularisation of services or parity of pay scale with regular employees.
Headnote:
Regularisation - Employment Dispute - The court held that the petitioners, engaged as part-time workers on fixed honorarium, cannot claim regularisation of their services or parity of pay scale with regular employees.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought regularisation of their services and payment of minimum pay scale, claiming to have served for more than 10 years as part-time workers on fixed honorarium.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were engaged as part-time workers on fixed honorarium and were not entitled to regularisation or parity of pay scale with regular employees.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, engaged as part-time workers, were entitled to regularisation and parity of pay scale with regular employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the fact that the petitioners were engaged as part-time workers on fixed honorarium and had limited duty hours, concluding that they were not entitled to regularisation or parity of pay scale.
Final Decision: The Special Appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Rajeev Gupta, C.J.
The appellants have filed this Special Appeal against the impugned judgment dated 1807-2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 4620 (S/S) of 2005.
2. The petitioners had filed the writ petition for the following reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the opp. parties to regularise the services of the petitioners on their posts and pay them the minimum of the pay scale as the other similarly situated persons are being paid from the date of their regularisation.
(ii) issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper.
(iii) allow the writ petition with cost."
3. The case of the writ petitioners was that they were engaged in 'Ramgar Pey Jal Yojana' as Beldar / Chowkidar during the period between 1985 to 1990. Later on, the petitioners' services were transferred to Kumaon Jal Sansthan. The petitioners' grievance was that in spite of their having served for a period of more than 10 years, neither their services were regularised nor they were being paid regular pay scale.
4. The appellants (respondents in the writ petition) filed their counter affidavit denying the writ petitioners' claim for regularisation. Paras 3 to 7 of the counter affidavit read as follows:
"3. That the contents of para no. 2 of the writ petition are not correct and as such are denied. The petitioners were not engaged as Daily Wagers in the department on the contrary they were engaged as part time workers on a fixed honorarium and as such neither they are entitled for minimum of pay scale nor they can claim for regularisation.
4. That in respect to the contents of para no. 3 of the writ petition, it is stated that petitioners are engaged as part time workers in the department and they were being paid honorarium for the work performed by them. The duty assigned to the petitioners is to open the valve of water distribution pipe line in the moming and to close the same in the evening which is a work of not more an hour per day for which they were being paid honorarium.
5. That in respect to the contents of para no. 4 of the writ petition, it is stated that it is true that Ramgar Pay Jal Yojna Project was transferred by the Jal Nigam to the Kumaon Jal Sansthan, however, it is denied that the petitioners were working under the said Yojna as the deponent has no knowledge of the same. So far the Kumaon Jal Sansthan is concerned, the petitioner 'Nere engaged as part time workers on a fixed honorarium basis.
6. That in respect to the contents of para nos. 5 & 6 of the writ petition it is stated that since the petitioners are part time worker there is no question of any action being taken against them.
7. That in respect to the contents of para no. 7 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioners were engaged against no post in the department on the contrary, as already stated in the preceding paras of this counter affidavit, they were engaged as a part time workers in the department for one hour per day to open the valve of drinking water distribution pipe line and to close the same in the evening. Duty assigned to them is only for one hour per day and as such there is no question of their regularisation or payment of minimum of pay scale to them."
5. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to pay minimum of pay scale till the petitioners are regularised; if the vacancies are available, to consider the case of the petitioners for their regularisation as per seniority; if there is no post vacant at present, the future vacancy shall be firstly filled by these petitioners; and no fresh recruitment shall be made till the petitioners are regularised.
6. Mr, J.P. Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the directions contained in the impugned judgment run counter to the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi & Others reported in 2006 AIR sew 1991.
7. The writ petiti
