AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.B. Sinha and Narayan Roy, JJ.—This application is directed against an order dated (sic).4.1993 passed by the Respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexure-16 to the writ application
The Petitioners admittedly were employed by the Respondent-Corporation on a daily rated basis. The grievance of the Petitioners is that, although, they have been working for a long time, their services have not been regularised despite the fact that services of other employees similarly situated have been regularised.
The Petitioners approached this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. Nos. 126/03 (R) and 127/93 (g) and a Division Bench of this Court by an under dated 25.1.1993 as contained in Annexure-15 to the writ application disposed of the said writ applications by directing the managing Director, Respondent No. 2 to dispose of the representations of the Petitioners which were pending before him for consideration.
The Petitioners'' aforementioned representations have been disposed of by the Managing Director, Respondent No. 2 by reason of his impugned order dated 6.4.1993 as contained in Annexure-16 to the writ application. In his order, the Managing Director, Respondent No. 2 has held as follows:
Most of the daily rate workers including the Petitioners were engaged in the various Regional offices of the Corporation which have since been abolished and these daily rate workers are being carried over by the respective Branches. It is further clarified on behalf of the Corporation that any further recruitment and promotion in the Corporation is stopped at the moment on account of observation made by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 13348 vide its order dt. 16.4.91 the Corporation appears to have agreed before the State Govt. that any further appointment shall be done with the consent of the State Govt.
Having gone through the entire facts and circumstances I make the following observations/direction: (i) It is not possible to regularise the services of the Petitioners because it tantamounts to condoning irregularities of the appointment committed in the past. According to Supreme Court''s rulings also no irregularities can be regularised with the lapse of time.
(ii) The Petitioners should have been given wages at a rate not less than the rates prevailing in the State Govt. which are usually fixed on the basis of the norms of minimum wage rates fixed by the Labour Department. O.S.D. (P and A) shall immediately collect information about the rate prevailing in the Govt. and if they are found to be less, shall get the rates revised w.e.f. the date on which Govt. has implemented the same.
(iii) OSD (P and A) may also put up an agenda note which may be considered by the Board of Directors for granting wages to those daily rate workers in proportion to the basic pay of the employees doing similar work.
(iv) whenever any appointment in the Corporation takes place in future the Petitioners shall be entitled for weight age on the basis of length of functioning in the Corporation vis-a-vis the outsiders on account of the experience of the functioning in the Corporation
This order has been dictated in the presence of the Petitioners and they are hereby regretfully advised to make efforts to take alternative jobs as the Corporation''s financial position (does not permit further recruitment. Till they get Anr. job, the Corporation in view of its compassion with them may not like to disengage them from their present status of daily rated workers.
Mr. Tapen Sen, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners inter-alia submitted that the reasons assigned by the Respondent No. 2 (Managing Director) are non-existent in as much as from a perusal of Annexure-18 series to the writ application it would appear that services of other employees were regularised.
The learned Counsel further submitted that from a perusal of Annexure-19 to the writ application it would appear that in similar situation a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 12.2.1991 passed in C.W.J.C. Nos, 1911 and 2026 of 1990 (R) gave similar directions.
The learned Counsel further submitted that in this case the; directions of the Respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application can not be said to have any application in as much as the said directions apply only to those employees who were appointed after October, 1987. The Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed on 18.6.1987 and 22.6.l987 respectively and thus they were not entitled to be regularised in their services.
Admittedly, the Petitioners were appointed as daily rate employees. They, therefore, never became permanent employees of the Respondent- Corporation. It is also not the case of the Petitioners that they were appointed upon following the procedures laid down in the Recruitment Rules as also upon observing the provision of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
From a perusal of Annexure-18 series the supplementary affidavit to the writ application upon which strong reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, it appears that the said orders have been passed in the year 1987
The Respondent No. 2 in his order as contained in Annexure-16 to the writ application has clearly spell out the difficulties in absorbing the Petitioners.
The order dated 6.4.1993 as contained in Annexure-16 to the writ application, in out| opinion, can neither be said to be arbitrary nor unreasonable.
So far as the order of this Court dated 12.2.1991 passed in C.W.J.C. Nos. 1911 and 2026 of 1990 (R) is concerned, in that case it was noticed that no reason has been assigned as to why the Managing Director approved the regularisation of six persons and did not approve the regularisation of the Petitioners.
In (hat situation, the Division Bench of this Court held that since no ground has been assigned as to why the Petitioners have not been regularised, we are of the opinion that the Petitioners have been discriminated. The aforementioned decision of this Court can not have any application in the facts and circumstances of the case.
So far as the submission of Mr. Sen learned Counsel for the Petitioner with reference to Annexure-6 to the writ application it concerned the same has also no relevance.
By reason of an order dated 15.4.1993 passed by Respondent No. 2, all the Regional Managers and Branch Managers were directed to disengage those persons who were engaged after October, 1987.
From the said order itself it is evident that the Regional Managers and Branch Managers have been making illegal appointments.
Further, Annexure-6 to the writ application hud not been given effect in the case of the Petitioners as admittedly the Petitioners were working despite issuance of Annexure-6 to the writ application.
Reference to Annexure-6 to the writ application by Mr. Sen was, therefore, absolutely misplaced.
In any event as noticed hereinbefore, as the Petitioners were not appointed upon following the procedures laid down under the Recruitment Rules or non-compliance of the provision of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, they have not derived any legal right to be appointed and thus a writ in the nature of mandamus can not be issued in their favour in the matter.
This aspect of the matter has recently been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sitaram Thakur Vs. The State of Bihar and Others and in Vijay Kumar v. The State of Bihar reported in 1993 (1) PLJR 99.
For the reasons aforementioned, no relief can be granted to the Petitioners.
This application is, therefore, dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.