Temporary employees lack a legal right for regularization unless appointed following due process.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member (A):-

Heard Shri Sunil, counsel for the applicant and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Original Application is filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 , seeking followingreliefs:-

“i. Set aside the order dated 02.09.2019 passed by respondent no 3.

ii. Issue a order or direction to direct the respondent no. 3. to allow the applicant to functioning as G.D.S.M.C. Post Man in post office Inchauli District Hamirpur and also Regularize the services of the applicant on the post of G.D.S. Post Man in post office Inchauli District Hamirpur and allow the application.

iii. It is also respectfully prayed that present OA be considered and allowed in view of judgment and order dated 14.04.2019 passed in OA по 330/742/2016.

iv. It is further prayed that respondents be directed to pay the salary monthly.

V. Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

vi. Award the cost of this petition to the Applicant.”

3. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant that the applicant was engaged by the Postal Department as a G.D.S. Post Man at Post Office Inchauli, District Hamirpur, on daily wages w.e.f. 02.02.2002 and continuously worked for about 14 years up to 03.04.2016 with only artificial breaks of one or two days as per departmental practice, during which period his work and conduct remained unblemished and was consistently appreciated by the authorities. Despite rendering long and continuous service, the Applicant‟s services were abruptly discontinued in April 2016 by Respondent No. 3 through an oral order, without issuing any show cause notice, charge- sheet, or passing any reasoned and speaking order. The Applicant made several representations to the respondents and also issued a legal notice dated 29.05.2015, but no relief was granted. Subsequently, the Applicant approached this Hon‟ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 330/1521/2017, wherein the competent authority was directed to decide his representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months, however, without considering the said direction issued by this Tribunal and without taking into consideration the material facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent‟s authority rejected the claim of the applicant vide order dated 02.09.2019. The Applicant, who is suffering from serious medical ailments and financial hardship, has been denied employment while similarly situated juniors continue in service. Hence this original application.

4. On the other hand, the Respondents have filed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the Applicant was never appointed on ad-hoc or regular basis to the post of GDSMC, Ichauli BO, and was only permitted to work as a substitute for a maximum period of 88 days (not exceeding 90 days) purely on temporary basis, at the sole risk and responsibility of the regular BPM, as clearly stipulated in the arrangement orders, which expressly stated that such engagement would not confer any right to absorption or regular appointment. It is submitted that the applicant has already agitated the same cause of action in O.A. No. 1521/2017, which was duly decided by this Hon‟ble Tribunal, and thereafter filed Contempt Petition No. 139/2019, wherein a compliance affidavit has already been filed on 06.12.2019 and the matter is still pending. The present O.A. No. 184/2021 has been filed again on identical facts and issues, rendering it barred by principles of res judicata and abuse of process of law. It is further submitted that the Hon‟ble Supreme C