LATEL SINGH SARSUDHE Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) H tHe consent of learned counsel appearing for tHe parties, tHe petition is Heard finally. By tHis petition, tHe petitioners seek a direction to tHe respondent-autHorities to regularize tHe services of tHe petitioners as Office Peons.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were working in the respondent department on temporary, basis since 1989, 1990, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994, respectively, but till date their services have not been regularized in spite of the fact that the petitioners have already spent their major portion of youth in the services of the respondents. The petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories. The respondent authorities have also issued instructions for regularization of the employees working on temporary basis, even then also, the cases of the petitioners have not been considered. Thus, this petition. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioners were not appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment.

(3.) BE that as it may, a temporary employee/daily wager cannot claim regularization, continuance or reinstatement in service on the basis of appointment, which was temporary and not in accordance with law and de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others, : (2006) 4 SCC 1, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., : (2007) (1) SCC 408, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others, : (2008) 10 SCC 1 and State of Punjab and others v. Surjit Singh and Others, : (2009) 9 SCC 514).