S SRINIVASAN Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is admittedly appointed temporarily as casual labourer in the second respondent Council, which is purely an autonomous body. Contending that the service of the petitioner as casual labourer has to be regularised under the Casual Labourers (grant of temporary status and regularisation of service) Scheme evolved by the Ministry of Law, Finance and Personnel Administration, the petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to regularise his service from March 1991 and to pay the wages, allowances and attendant benefits on par with the regular permanent employees doing identical work.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the rights of the petitioner conferred under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 23(1) of the Constitution of India would be violated, if the service of the petitioner is not regularised. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of this Court dated 4.4.1997 in W.P.No.16080 of 1994, wherein E. Padmanabhan, J, following the order of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1003 of 1990, directed the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners therein.

(3.) Opposing the above contentions and placing reliance on the averments stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional Central Government Standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Casual Labourers (grant of temporary status and regularisation of service) Scheme is not applicable to the respondents, as the respondents are purely an autonomous body and that the respondents having identified the surplus manpower, formulated Voluntary Retirement Schemes, pursuant to which almost 800 employees retired voluntarily from the respondent organisation. In any event, the petitioner, being a temporary casual labourer, is not entitled to seek a writ of Mandamus as prayed for, as a matter of right.