Sarvajeet Singh vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative): Shri Ramesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri R.K. Umang, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was working as daily wage Driver in the office of the respondent No.4 since March, 2006. When the respondents have not regularized the services of the applicant, the applicant filed a representation dated 12.03.2013 before respondent No.4 and requested therein to regularize him as he was working since seven years in the department. The respondent No.4 forwarded the representation dated 12.03.2013 and recommended the same to the respondent No.3 and requested therein that the request of the applicant for regularizing his services as Driver may be considered because he is working for the last seven years as daily wage driver. The respondent No.3 wrote a letter to respondent No.2 and requested that the services of the applicant may be regularized as Driver against the sanctioned post of regular Driver. The applicant again made a representation dated 16.10.2015 before the respondent No.4 for his regularization. The respondent No.4 again forwarded and recommended the same to the office of the respondent No.3. The applicant filed another representation dated 11.10.2017 before respondent No.2 along with representation dated 12.03.2013, letter dated 15.07.2013 sent by the office of the respondent No.3 to the office of the respondent No.2 and recommendation letter dated 02.11.2015 written by the office of the respondent No.4 to the office of the respondent No.3 and requested therein that the applicant was working as daily wage Driver in the office of the respondent No.4 from more than 11 years and he is eligible for the post of driver, therefore, he is legally entitled to be regularized as Driver against the sanctioned post of driver. When the respondent No.4 restrained the applicant orally to work as daily wage driver w.e.f. 12.03.2018 illegally and arbitrarily then the applicant sent a representation dated 15.03.2018 before the respondent No.2 and requested therein that the respondent No.4 may be directed to allow the applicant to work as daily wage Driver till the regularly appointed driver join in the office of the respondent No.4. The applicant filed an OA No.485 of 2018 before this Hon'ble Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.05.2018 with direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order. On 05.09.2018, the respondent No.5 has passed the order with the approval of the respondent No.2 and rejected the claim of the applicant illegally and in arbitrary manner. The applicant relied upon the order of this Tribunal passed in Original Application No.441 of 1989 wherein it is observed that “ …..in future regularisation should be done exactly in accordance with the list and the respondents are directed to regularise all such persons who are working as Chaukidar in various centres on the vacancies which are sanctioned.”

In their short counter affidavit the respondents have submitted that the applicant was initially appointed in the year 2006 as Driver on daily wages. Now he seeks regularization. Impugned order indicates that applicant was not appointed in normal course of procedure and his initial appointment itself was out of way on daily wages. There is no evidence to demonstrate that any recruitment process was adopted in engaging his services. It is further submitted that the applicant was engaged by Bareilly Centre to drive the car on daily wagers as per need and accordingly he was paid towards to drive the car. No letter was issued to him for engagement. As and when his service was required, he was called by Bareilly Centre to drive the car. Neither the Central Regional Lucknow, Head Quarter New Delhi nor Bareilly Centre issued any letter/ order to this effect. It is further submitted that the applicant has filed the O.A. No. 485/2016 seeking the intervention of the Hon'ble CAT Allahabad to direct this department to regularise his service as driver. It is also submitted that as and when the service of a driver was required to drive the car for the time being, the applicant was asked to drive the car and accordingly wage was paid to him. As such there is no question of regularization to applicant as driver in this office in absence of any rule in existance to regularize such service. The payment of the applicant for engagement period has been paid from contingency fund. Therefore, the present original application is liable to be dismissed.

In his rejoinder, the applicant has almost reiterated the facts narrated in the OA.

Heard both the counsels and verified the documents available on record.

The applicant was initially appointed in the year 2006 as Driver on daily wages. There is no evidence to demonstrate that any recruitment process was adopted in engaging his services. As and when the service of the applicant was required to drive the car for the time being, the payment was paid to him. Applicant could not show any rule to establish his claim and as such no such rule exists.

In the light of above discussions, the applicant has not been able to establish his claim for relief sought in this OA. The OA is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.

All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.