Namendra Veer vs State of U.P. and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—On 16.1.1990, Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer on ad hoc basis for 89 days. Before expiry of 89 days, by an order dated 30.1.1990, the said ad hoc appointment of the Petitioner was cancelled. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached the Hon''ble High Court at Allahabad by filing a writ petition. The said writ petition was dismissed with an observation that the Petitioner may make an appropriate representation before the appropriate authority. Armed with such observation, the Petitioner approached the appropriate authority. By an order dated 8.7.1992, the appropriate authority made it absolutely clear that the Petitioner cannot be given an appointment either by way of ad hoc or otherwise. However, by the said order dated 8.7.1992, the appropriate authority engaged the Petitioner as Junior Engineer but on daily wage of Rs. 35/- per day for the period between 8.7.1992 and 31.3.1993. This daily wage engagement of the Petitioner continued until 26.9.1992. On 27.9.1992, Petitioner was disengaged as a daily wager. The said disengagement resulted in filing of a claim petition before the Tribunal at Lucknow. The Tribunal granted an interim stay of the disengagement order dated 27.9.1992. As a result, the Petitioner continued to have in law, the same status as the Petitioner acquired by reason of the said order dated 8.7.1992, whereby it was made clear that the Petitioner cannot be appointed either on ad hoc basis or otherwise and can only be engaged as a daily wager upto 31.3.1993.

Before the Tribunal, in addition to seeking interference with the order dated 27.9.1992 disengaging the Petitioner from his daily wage engagement, Petitioner had sought for his regularization as a permanent Junior Engineer of the State of Uttar Pradesh. On 9.11.2000, the State of Uttar Pradesh was bifurcated. The State of Uttarakhand came into being by reason of such bifurcation. A Tribunal was constituted for the State of Uttarakhand. In the meantime, the assignment of the Petitioner was allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. The claim petition of the Petitioner, then pending before the Tribunal at Lucknow, stood transferred to the Tribunal at Uttarakhand. The said claim petition has been dismissed by the judgment and order of the Tribunal of Uttarakhand impugned in the present writ petition. The Petitioner is contending that not only his disengagement order is required to be interfered with, the Petitioner should also be regularized. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal impugned in the writ petition. The fact remains that on 16.1.1990, when the Petitioner was appointed as an ad hoc Junior Engineer, such appointment was given to the Petitioner not only in breach of the existing law but also in breach of the provisions contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Be that as it may, the said appointment was cancelled on 30.1.1990. The challenge thrown thereto met with an order of dismissal of the writ petition passed by the Hon''ble High Court at Allahabad. Although, the Hon''ble High Court at Allahabad observed that the Petitioner may make a representation, which representation the Petitioner could make even without such observation, but the fact remains that the Petitioner had no ground to make a representation for being appointed contrary to law. Be that as it may, when the representation was made by the Petitioner, in no uncertain terms, his representation was rejected by the order dated 8.7.1992, whereby it was clearly held out to the Petitioner that he cannot be appointed. By the order dated 8.7.1992 only a daily wage assignment was given to the Petitioner, which it was made clear, could only last upto 31.3.1993. It is well-known in law that a daily wage appointment comes to an end in the evening of the day the appointment had been given. On 27.9.1992, it was held out to the Petitioner that he is no longer required to discharge his daily wage assignment. In other words, it was held out that his daily wage appointment is no longer required from the morning of 27.9.1992. A daily wager has no right to continue inasmuch as, as aforesaid, his engagement comes to an end on coming to an end the day the engagement was given.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that from 1992 until date, for a long 18 years, the Petitioner has served. The service rendered by the Petitioner was at his peril and of his volition. No one compelled him to do so. On the contrary, by approaching the Tribunal and by obtaining an order from the Tribunal, it is the Petitioner, who volunteered to serve in the capacity as was prevalent immediately prior to 27.9.1992. If the Petitioner has wasted any time during the last 18 years, the Petitioner alone is responsible therefore and no one else. Such voluntary action on the part of the Petitioner does not tantamount to any special equity in his favour. That being the situation, service for 18 years by the Petitioner, in the circumstances, is of no consequence. No other ground exists for regularisation. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.