P. MARIMUTHU Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of rejection issued by the third respondent dated 13.1.2014 in relation to the claim of the writ petitioner for regularisation of his services in the sanctioned permanent post, is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The writ petitioner was appointed as a Watchman in the fifth respondent-Youth Hostel at Pondicherry and was working on temporary basis and on consolidated pay. The consolidated pay salary to the writ petitioner had been revised periodically.

(3.) The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, made a submission that the writ petitioner is continuously working in the fifth respondent-Hostel for more than two decades and therefore, he is entitled for regularisation. It is contended that the second respondent had forwarded the papers to the third respondent to consider the case of the writ petitioner and pass orders on merits. However, the third respondent without considering the length of service rendered by the writ petitioner, rejected the claim and issued the impugned order. The contention of the writ petitioner is that he has served continuously for more than 240 days and therefore, he is entitled to be regularised in the permanent post.