VIJAY SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed with respondent no. 2 as a driver on a lump sum payment of Rs. 7000/- p. m. initially for three months from 27-04-1994 but then he continued to be employed for years with some intermittent breaks. His last term of employment was from 01-07-1998 to 31-12-1998. During that period he was arrested by the police for an offence under Section 498-A IPC which led to his absence from duty with the respondent no. 2 and his services were terminated pre-maturely. During the period of his absence, respondent no. 2 appointed one Sanjay Singh, who was also already working as a driver and was admittedly junior to the petitioner, as a driver on temporary basis on 25-02-99. He joined w. e. f. 1-3-99.

(2.) THE case of the respondent no. 2 is that the petitioner as well as that sanjay Singh were both appointed on contractual basis since there was only one regular post of driver and against that one post one Bhagwant Singh was employed. Bhagwant Singh, however, died on 6th January, 1999 and that made the regular vacancy available. Since the petitioner was not reporting for duty because of his being involved in the afore-said criminal case, the respondent no. 2 converted the temporary employment of Sanjay Singh into regular employment on 1st March, 2000. The petitioner finally got acquitted in the criminal case on 29th June, 1999 and thereafter he was again employed by respondent no. 2 on contract basis from 13-08-1999 upto 31-12-1999 since the regular vacancy had already been given to Sanjay Singh. Petitioner then staked his claim for regular appointment against the post which had been given in his absence to Sanjay Singh. Since the respondent no. 2 did not accept that request of the petitioner he filed a writ petition (being WP (C) No. 7790/2000 ). That writ petition came to be disposed of on 23rd July, 2004 in view of the statement made in that petition on behalf of the respondent no. 2 herein by its counsel that as and when there would be either a leave vacancy or a regular vacancy in future the petitioner would be considered and given preference.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that despite having given the afore-said assurance to this Court respondent no. 2 had engaged the services of respondent no. 3 herein, namely shri Subhanand, as a driver in January, 2007. In this writ petition he has sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to appoint him as staff car driver in terms of order dated 23 rd July, 2004 in WP (C) No. 7790/2000.