U.P.Police Awas Nigam Ltd. vs Aditya Pratap Singh

Heard Mr. B.R. Singh, in support of this appeal. No body was present for the respondent, though appearance of Sri Y.S. Lohit has been notified. Mr. Lohit has appeared for the respondent earlier and has also appeared for him during the hearing of the writ petition from time to time. This appeal reached for final hearing day before, i.e., on 20.1.2009. Mr. Singh informed the Court that Mr. Lohit was specifically informed by him personally, but he has not appeared in Court today.

The appellant herein is the U.P. Police Awas Nigam Ltd. and the appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4.8.1999 passed by a learned Single Judge.

The short facts leading to this appeal are this wise. According to the appellant, the respondent was working on the basis what they described as a ''Piece Rate Basis''. According to the appellant, the respondent was engaged on Piece Rate Basis through Contractor. He was so engaged from 1.5.1995. According to the respondent, he was discontinued and he was so told orally on 30.6.1996 as stated in paragraph 8 of the writ petition. He, therefore, filed a writ petition to challenge his alleged termination. The writ petition was filed in August, 1996. There was no interim order whatsoever. The writ petition reached for final hearing on 4.8.1999. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned judgment and order directing the appellant herein to regularize the services of the respondent in the appellant Nigam and also to allow him to continue as, he was working earlier.

Being aggrieved by this judgment and order, the present appeal is filed by the appellant herein. The appeal is also filed belatedly and, therefore, when the appeal was taken up for admission, the Division Bench stayed only a part of the order, which directed regularization of the respondent. The Division Bench permitted the respondent to work on the same basis, on which he was expected to work under the order of the learned Single Judge.

Mr. Singh has filed an affidavit of one Manoj Sharma, wherein it is stated in paragraph 4(v) that till date the answering respondent has not reported for his duty.

The only submission of Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant is that respondent No.1 was engaged on Piece Rate Basis. It was not a regular employment whatsoever and there could not be any such direction to regularize him. He relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein the Apex Court has laid down that all Government employment has to be through proper channel, which will mean a proper advertisement and a due selection process. In the instant case, the respondent was engaged on a Piece Rate Basis. That was his case also inasmuch as he has relied upon the experience certificate given by the Nigam, which states that he was working as a Piece Rated Employee from 1.5.1995.

In view of this situation, there could not have been any such order of regularization in Government service. It is not the case of the respondent that he was engaged through proper channel, i.e., after a proper advertisement and due process of selection.

In the circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

(Appeal allowed)