Ad-hoc/daily wage employees appointed without statutory recruitment rules have no right to regularization despite vacancies or long service; constitutional scheme of equality under Articles 14/16 mandates strict compliance.

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):

By filing the present OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-

"8.1 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously be pleased to quash the impugned orders.

8.2 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants against the vacancies which were clearly available prior to the decision of merger communicated by DoP&T on 30-4-2010.

8.3 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may also be pleased to direct the respondents to give all consequential benefits, including arrears.

8.4 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass any other or further order as may be deemed fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.

8.3 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may also further be graciously pleased to grant costs against the respondents and in favour of the applicant."

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Facts of the case as stated by the applicants, are that:

2.1 The applicants were appointed on ad-hoc basis after having been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and selected by the Departmental Committee in Grade of Rs.2500-3200 in the year 2004 on the post of Peon.

2.2 It is stated that since the respondents failed to regularize their services in spite of the fact that several others in similar circumstances had been regularized, both the above applicants along with some other colleagues filed OA No.473/2008, titled Anil Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others and this Tribunal disposed of the said OA 473/2008 along with other three OAs, i.e., 478/2008, 550/2008 and 857/2008 vide common Order/Judgment dated 19.11.2008 (Annexure A-2) with the following observations:-

"31. In all these cases, applicants have sought regularization on the ground that similarly situated persons viz, Mohit Sharma, Satpal, Ram Avtar, Mohan Sharma and Sunil Kumar have been regularized and to direct the respondents to pay them the remuneration in the pay scale as they were all appointed on ah doc basis after due selection and on being sponsored by the employment exchange.

31. As far 2nd prayer is concerned, it has already been rejected in case of Anil Kumar. The same reasoning would apply here also. As far as 1^st relief is concerned, it is noted that in all these cases, the applicants were appointed on ad hoc basis in the year 2006 and the only ground taken for regularization is that similarly situated persons have been regularized. It is not even their case that any person who was appointed after them on ad hoc basis has been regularized, therefore, they cannot have any valid grievance nor can claim that they should be regularized. The persons who have been regularized were all appointed much earlier than the applicants in these cases, therefore, these OAs are distinguishable. Simply because some other persons were regularized, it does not give any legal right to the applicants in these cases to claim regularization.

32. In these circumstances no direction can be given even to consider these applicants for regularisation. However in case sufficient work is available with the respondents and they need to engage workers to get the work of Group 'D' done, they shall consider engaging the applicants on daily wages. As per their seniority instead of getting the work done through some contractor. Of course if respondents find any of the applicants is not working properly, it would be open to the respondents to pass appropriate orders."

2.3 The aforesaid Order/Judgment of this Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide common Order/Judgment dated 31.03.2009