SANJAY SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to regularise the services of the Petitioners on the posts they have been working with effect from the date of their respective appointments and grant them all the consequential benefits including T.A., D.A., HRC, CCA and regular pay scales, which the permanent employees performing the same duties are getting. A writ of certiorari has also been prayed, inter alia, for quashing of service regulations of NIEPA (Respondent No.2).

(2.) The Petitioners have been working with the Respondent No.2 for several years. It is alleged that the Respondent No.2 has manipulated and managed breaks in their service so that they cannot claim regular employment for a period of 240 days in a given year. It is stated that the work performed by the Petitioners is of a perennial nature. Hence the practice adopted by the Respondents is not only mala fide but also in violation of the Petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed to them under /Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution, and contrary to the Directive Principles laid down under Articles 38 and 39-D of the Constitution.

(3.) The defence of the Respondents primarily is that the Petitioners, like several .other persons, are engaged contractually from time to time in various projects that are undertaken by the Respondents. It is averred that there are no regular vacancies at the present moment. The Respondents have relied on the factum of the Petitioners services having been engaged in various projects over the past several years to vindicate the assertion that there are no malafides on the part of the Respondents. As regards the break in service it is submitted that this is necessitated whenever the Petitioners, and other persons similarly placed, complete the project to which they are then appointed. Thereafter they are engaged in any project undertaken by NIEPA (Respondent No.2). It is further submitted that the Petitioners had themselves participated in various Selections for appointment to regular posts which had occurred. Even though they had failed to qualify in the tests and the Selection, while they were not even regular appointment, their engagement on projects, as and when available, had continued. It was further submitted that there is no substance or basis for the Petitioners to predicate that their services as heretofore engaged, would be discontinued. Reliance has also been placed on the previous order of this Court in CWP 1298/2001. The writ petition has been dismissed keeping in view similar submissions made on behalf of the Respondents.