AMIT YADAV Vs. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for direction to the respondent not to terminate the services of the petitioners from the post of Tr. Telephone Operators/Complaint Receiver till regular selection is made to the posts: for further direction to the respondent to consider the petitioners for regularisation on the post after giving due weightage of their past services and for grant of attached benefit of service in the matter of pay and allowances on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

(2.) The say of the petitioners is that the petitioners are working as Tr. Telephone Operators/Complaint Receiver in Delhi Vidyut Board on the consolidated salary of Rs. 2500.00 per month: that the petitioners were appointed when they applied in response to an advertisement for the post which required the candidates to possess registration with Employment Exchange in Delhi; that before appointment, the petitioners were subjected to an interview and were selected on the basis of their performance in the interview and their merit and experience: that the petitioners were appointed in May, 1998 which was for six months; However, their services were not continued and terminated on 15th November, 1998, evidently because the respondent has adopted a policy that an incumbent adhoc/contract/daily wager shall not be continued for mere than six months in a year: that the respondent thereafter initiated appointment of 80 such persons on daily wage basis under the nomenclature of Complaint Clerk: that again in May, 1999, petitioners were appointed on the posts of Tr. Telephone Operator/Complaint Receiver; that the term of appointment contained a clause that the appointment will came to an end in the month of September, 1999; that large number of posts of Tr. Telephone Operator/Complaint Receiver are tying vacant and till then, the petitioners be continued to hold the posts till such regularisation/ absorption on the vacant posts: that there are 100 posts of Tr. Telephone 0perator/ Complaint Receiver tying vacant.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. S.K. Sinha learned counsel for the petitioners that though regular vacancies are lying vacant/available, the respondent resorted to their appointment by way of contract basis mala fide for a fixed duration of six months: that the work done by the petitioners is of regular and perennial nature; that the appointment for a fixed duration of six months is a camouflage and that the petitioners be permitted to hold the posts till the posts of Tr. Telephone Operators/Complaint Receiver are available by way of regular appointment.