BHAGWATI PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner prays for the quashing of the orders dated 20-12-95 and 4-7-96 (Annexures 'B' & 'C-1') whereby the petitioner's claims for temporary status as Peon and regularisation of his services in the post of Peon on regular basis as and when vacancy is available in the Secretariat of the National Commission for Minorities (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') which have been rejected And for direction to grant petitioner temporary status from the date of his initial appointment on regular basis on the post of Peon with pay in accordance with law with arrears.

(2.) The say of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on 7-7-1993 as a Peon on daily wage basis and since then the petitioner has been continuously working till today without any break; that the petitioner had completed 240 days in a year sometimes in March 1994 and according to the existing instructions of the Department of Personnel and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, petitioner is entitled to get temporary status on completion of 240 days; that the petitioner's request for grant of temporary status was not only turned down but the respondent adopted unfair labour practice by issuing impugned order dated 20-12-95 in colourable exercise of power to remove the petitioner from the service; that though the petitioner was appointed as a Peon on daily wage basis in the office order dated 20-12-95, the petitioner has been described as a Peon on co-terminus basis with the term of the office of the Chairman of the Commission; that the petitioner has worked satisfactorily without any complaint against him; that the petitioner's representations (Annexures 'C', 'D' & 'E') have been illegally and mala fidely turned down by the respondents.

(3.) The respondent vide counter-affidavit states that the Chairman and Members of the Commission have the prerogative to appoint their personal staff from any source of their choice as per the rule of procedure laid down by the Commission; that the term of such office is co-terminus with their tenure; that such a staff has no claim for regular appointment in the Commission; that under this prerogative, the Chairman initially engaged the petitioner on Daily Wage Basis w.e.f. 7-7-93 against one of the posts of Peon on co-terminus basis in his office; that he was, however, formally appointed by the Chairman as a Peon on co- terminus basis from the date of his initial engagement w.e.f. 7-7-93; that the applicant was also drawing his pay and allowances in the prescribed pay scale of the post of Peon on co-terminus basis; that consequently upon the Chairman demitting the office, the Chairman terminated services of the petitioner w.e.f. 20-7-96 (F.N.); that the petitioner was thus not engaged by the Government but by the Chairman of the Commission in his own capacity against one of the co-terminus vacancy in his office; that as the petitioner has been appointed by one of the member of the Commission on co-terminus basis as per his prerogative and, therefore, he is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the petition.