GEORGE Vs. DIRECTOR OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents to regularise the service of the writ petitioner as pump operator from 30.1.1989 with all attendant benefits and observe him as a basic servant in the third respondent union with all benefits.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner was engaged as Pump Operator in the third respondent Panchayat Union. The petitioner was serving for a considerable length of time. The writ petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis on 31.01.1989. As such, he is working for more than 30 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the Government issued various orders granting the benefit of regularisation to these temporary employees many such similarly placed persons were absorbed in the regular establishment. Thus, the similar benefits are to be extended to the writ petitioner also and the services of the writ petitioner is to be regularized in the sanctioned post in the regular time scale of pay.

(3.) The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the said contention by stating that the writ petitioner was initially appointed as Pump Operator on part-time basis on consolidated pay. In this regard, it is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was not made through employment exchange or by following the communal roster and as per the reservation policy. The petitioner is not a full time employee and he is continuing as a part-time Village Panchayat employee. Thus, the benefit of regularisation cannot be granted to the writ petitioner.