AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 342 wordsWe are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon''ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Sharma on 2642005 when the original order of dismissal of the writ petition was passed and on 2992005 when the review petition was dismissed.
The writ petitionerappellant has been working as a daily wager and his services were disengaged. The writ petition was dismissed, as no right to employment could be established; the review petition was also dismissed, as the writ petitioner appellant did not come within the terms of the Government Order dated 13th April, 1992, which sought to regularize certain employees, who had rendered at least three years continuous service of 240 working days in each year or more on 11th October, 1989.
The learned Judge imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand), as the review petition was groundless.
His Lordship, with respect, was perfectly right in proceeding in the manner as his Lordship did. The imposition of costs is a deterrent and unless the discretion of Hon''ble Single Judges is allowed to be exercised properly and upheld by the Court of appeal, frivolous litigations will go on increasing ever more.
The submission is made on behalf of the appellant before us by the learned Counsel appearing that his client''s case is being considered for regularization by the State Government notwithstanding his disengagement as early as in December, 1990.
We have no facts or compelling documents, which can persuade us to hold so; we need not enter into this fact either; all that we can and do say is that if the appellant''s case is being considered by the State Government, then the dismissal of the appellant''s case will not in any manner prejudice him.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
It is clarified that the above observation will not in any manner be read as an order compelling the State Government either to consider the case of the regularization of the appellant and even less as a direction to grant him regular appointment.
