State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.1568 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.10229 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9.11.1995 of the Allahabad High Court in S.A.No. 302 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.10229 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9.11.1995 of the Allahabad High Court in S.A.No. 302 of 1995)
Petitioner: State of U.P. & Ors.
Respondent: Ajay Kumar
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.1568 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.10229 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9.11.1995 of the Allahabad High Court in S.A.No. 302 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.10229 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9.11.1995 of the Allahabad High Court in S.A.No. 302 of 1995)
Judges: K.RAMASWAMY & G.T.NANAVATI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 17, 1997
Appearances:
Mr. Arvind Kr. Shukla and Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Advocates for the Appellants.
Ms. N. Annapoorani, Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Daily Wage Workers
Regularisation – Held that daily wage appointments are in relation to contingent establishment in which there cannot exist any post and continue as long as work exists – Held High Court erred in directing appellant to regularise services of respondent when vacancy arises – Direction being illegal is set aside.
Daily Wage Workers
Regularisation – Held that daily wage appointments are in relation to contingent establishment in which there cannot exist any post and continue as long as work exists – Held High Court erred in directing appellant to regularise services of respondent when vacancy arises – Direction being illegal is set aside.
Held:
Daily wage appointment will obviously be in relation to contingent establishment in which there cannot exist any post and it continues so long as the work exists. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench was clearly in error in directing the appellant to regularise the service of the respondent to the post as and when the vacancy arises and to continue him until then. The direction in the backdrop of the above facts is, obviously, illegal. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court, made on November 9, 1995 in Special Appeal No.302/95.
3. The admitted position is that the respondent came to be appointed on daily wage basis on February 14, 1985 as Class IV employee, Nursing Orderly, in the Medical College by th Medical Superintendent. When the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court for his regularisation, the learned single Judge pointed out that the respondent has not brought to the notice of the Court, any statutory rule under which the respondent could be regularised, on the basis of the service rendered by him as a daily wage earner. Even the method of recruitment adopted by the Superintendent was not proper inasmuch as he did not call applications. The Division Bench reversed the decision of the learned single Judge and had given directions. It is now settled legal position that there should exist a post and either administrative instructions or statutory rules must be in operation to appoint a person to the post. Daily wage appointment will obviously be in relation to contingent establishment in which there cannot exist any post and it continues so long as the work exists. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench was clearly in error in directing the appellant to regularise the service of the respondent to the post as and when the vacancy arises and to continue him until then. The direction in the backdrop of the above facts is, obviously, illegal.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the learned single Judge stands upheld and that of the Division Bench stands set aside. No costs.
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court, made on November 9, 1995 in Special Appeal No.302/95.
3. The admitted position is that the respondent came to be appointed on daily wage basis on February 14, 1985 as Class IV employee, Nursing Orderly, in the Medical College by th Medical Superintendent. When the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court for his regularisation, the learned single Judge pointed out that the respondent has not brought to the notice of the Court, any statutory rule under which the respondent could be regularised, on the basis of the service rendered by him as a daily wage earner. Even the method of recruitment adopted by the Superintendent was not proper inasmuch as he did not call applications. The Division Bench reversed the decision of the learned single Judge and had given directions. It is now settled legal position that there should exist a post and either administrative instructions or statutory rules must be in operation to appoint a person to the post. Daily wage appointment will obviously be in relation to contingent establishment in which there cannot exist any post and it continues so long as the work exists. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench was clearly in error in directing the appellant to regularise the service of the respondent to the post as and when the vacancy arises and to continue him until then. The direction in the backdrop of the above facts is, obviously, illegal.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the learned single Judge stands upheld and that of the Division Bench stands set aside. No costs.
