ARUN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. The matter is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner as set out in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as a Research Assistant in Indian Institute of Mass Communication, Department of Communication, Government of India/respondent No. 2 in September 1995 and worked therein upto January 1998. The petitioner has contended that the petitioner fulfilled the minimum qualification for the said post as laid down in the advertisement. The petitioner requested the respondent No. 2 to regularise his services on the post of Research Assistant as he had already completed 240 days of continuous service. The petitioner had also approached the respondent Nos. 3, i.e., National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the redressal of his grievance. The petitioner has further contended that after termination of his service on 19.06.1998 he had been persuading the respondents for his regular appointment on the said post of Research Assistant and when he failed in all his efforts, then, he approached the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee for assistance and thereafter in the year 2005 preferred the present writ petition. Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has contended that the petitioner was a temporary employee and as per the certificate placed by the petitioner himself the petitioner had worked as Research Assistant with respondent No. 2 from September, 1995 to January 1998 on purely temporary basis and on consolidated salary. Counsel for respondent No. 2, therefore, has stated that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors. as the employment of the petitioner with respondent No. 2 was contractual in nature and the same came to an end on 19.06.1998. Counsel for respondent further contends that the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition on 09.09.2005 that is after long gap of seven years from the date of his contract coming into an end and, therefore, the present petition is also bad due to delay and laches. The petitioner has not given any reason for such delay in filing the petition. No appointment letter has been placed on record. However, the certificate issued by respondent No. 2 dated 19.06.1998 shows that the services of the petitioner were purely on temporary basis and on consolidated salary w.e.f. September, 1995 to January, 1998. This position is not disputed by the petitioner himself as in the petition the petitioner has stated that his service was terminated w.e.f. 19.06.1998. This assertion on the part of the petitioner itself indicates that the petitioner had worked with respondent No. 2 only for a limited period and after 19.06.1998 the services of petitioner were not engaged by respondent No. 2. The employment of the petitioner being contractual in nature, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (Supra) is fully attracted in the present case. It would be relevant to refer the following observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (Supra) which reads as under:

(3.) Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the said judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (Supra) is fully applicable as the petitioner was employed on contractual basis for a limited period w.e.f. September, 1995 to January, 1998 thereafter the services of the petitioner were not engaged by respondent No. 2. The petitioner has also failed to advance any reason or offer any explanation for not preferring the petition for such a long gap of about seven years after the date of his alleged termination on 19.06.1998 and, therefore, also the present petition is not maintainable on the ground of unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.