Regularization of service requires substantiated proof of continuous employment as a daily wager; brief employment or work performed through a contractor does not entitle an individual to regularization.

Order

1. Petitioner has preferred the writ petition with the following prayer :-

"a) By an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Class IV employee with all consequential benefits.

b) Any other relief as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner worked as daily wager in the respondent-department for six years in continuity. The Department admitted that the petitioner worked in the department, therefore, the respondent may be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Class-IV employee with all consequential benefits.

3. Contrarily, it is contended that the petitioner was not appointed either on daily wages or in the regular service, rather the petitioner worked through contractual services in the department. Annexure-3 placed on record by the petitioner itself shows that the petitioner worked in contractual services. It is also contended that the petitioner worked in the department only for the period from February, 1993 to July, 1993 and for that period he has already been paid daily wages as per the norms prescribed by the State Government, hence, the petition is devoid of any merits and deserves dismissal.

4. Heard and perused the material available on record.

5. The petitioner has placed on record documents which only shows that the petitioner worked in the department, however, there is no document to show that the petitioner was a daily wager and worked continuously for six years for the purpose of being regularized. The facts further shows that the petitioner worked under the instructions of contractor, after working as daily wager for brief period of February, 1993 to July, 1993. There is no document on record showing the fact that the petitioner was ever appointed as a daily wager for a period from February 1993 and continued to work for six years. The respondent, in their reply, has specifically stated that the petitioner worked as a daily wager from February 1993 to July, 1993 and thereafter, he did not work. The petitioner has not controverted the factual aspects nor placed on record any document controverting the fact, as stated in the reply. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that he worked as a daily wager employee in the department in continuity for six years and he may be considered for regularization to the post of Class-IV is misconceived and devoid of any merit.

6. Upshot to the above discussion, the instant writ petition is dismissed.