SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. DELHI COMMISSION FOR WOMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Driver on 9.6.2000 on daily wage basis. The petitioner initially was being paid a consolidated salary of Rs.3000/- per month. However, no appointment letter was issued to the petitioner, only an application was got signed from him. However, on 08.11.2000, the petitioner was informed by a letter that his services will be for a period of three months w.e.f. 28.8.2000 to 27.11.2000 on contract basis, which runs as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_878_ILRDLH15_2006Html1.htm</FRM> The terms and conditions of the contract are these:

(2.) In the petition, it is averred that petitioner was shocked to receive a letter dated 27.10.2004, wherein he was served with 15 days notice of termination of service w.e.f. 3.11.2004 Although, the petition mentions that a copy of the letter dated 27.10.2004 is being attached herewith, yet, on the perusal of the writ petition, it has transpired that it contains the memorandum in respect of seven persons including Ms.Meena Kumari and Mr.Joginder Kumar, whose cases are also pending and all the three petitioners have engaged the same Advocate. However, the name of petitioner Sanjeev Kumar in the above said memorandum is conspicuously missing. Memorandum pertaining to Sanjeev Kumar was not produced on the file. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with this question, he conceded that he did not have any document concerning Sanjeev Kumar. However, in the counter affidavit the respondent has admitted that this is a matter of record and it needs no further reply. Consequently, this is an admitted fact and needs no further evidence. It is not out of place to mention here that all the three cases pertaining to all the above said petitioners are being decided today itself.

(3.) In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that appropriate writ be issued, the impugned order dated 27.10.2004 be quashed, the respondent be directed to consider to regularize the petitioner in the post of Driver and the petitioner be put in appropriate pay scale as drawn by the equally placed persons in other Government departments/agencies etc. Vide order of this Court passed on 09.11.2004, the respondent was directed not to terminate the services of the petitioner till further orders.