RAKESH KUMAR Vs. NATIONAL AIRPORTS AUTHORITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal challenges the judgment and order of His Lordship sitting singly, dated 4.05.2005 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7257 of 1996 Rakesh Kumar and Anr. v/s. National Airport Authority, India, C.A.T.C. Allahabad and others. The judgment and order has been assailed by the Appellants on the ground that Appellants had come in service in the year 1984 as daily wager and they are entitled to be regularised as they have completed more that 240 days in totality during the years 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1991, 1992 and 1993. The order is also assailed on the ground that those daily wagers, who had come in service in 1984 after the Appellants, have been regularised by the Respondents ignoring the claim of the Appellants. According to counsel since the Appellants had become eligible of continuous for regularisation on completion of 240 days only in terms of departmental order of March, 1994, and this fact have not been considered in the judgment impugned, the case of the Appellants appears to have been decided on surmise and conjectures. It is lastly contended that Lallu Ram, Ram Babu, Prakash Chand, and Khanna Lal who are all juniors to the Appellants have been regularised in service by the Respondents, though they have worked lesser days than the Appellants. The Appellants have relied upon a judgment rendered in, (1996) 1 U.P.L.B.E.C. 804 Rajpal v/s. State of Haryana, wherein the Apex Court has held that since the persons similarly situated were regularised, Appellant be also regularised because he is the only person left and directed for regularization with all consequential benefits denying the backwages. Per contra learned Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that admittedly the case of the Appellants is not of parity but the Appellants were not qualified to be considered or called for interview as they have not completed 240 days in a calendar year. From perusal of judgment of the writ petition impugned in this appeal it appears that the claim of the Appellants is not of a parity. Sri Khanna Lal and others with whom the Appellants are claiming parity had completed continuous working of 240 days in a calendar year as required by the departmental order of March 1994, whereas the Appellants have not worked continuously 240 days or more in a calendar year. It is rather the case of the Respondents that it is not span of years which is the crux of the matter but in number of 240 days worked continuously in a year.

(2.) Considering the arguments advanced by the counsels, record, fact and circumstances of the case, we find that the Appellants were rightly not called for interview for regularisation as they did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of continuous work for 240 days or more in a calendar year for being considered for absorption. Further more, law is settled that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued for regularization of an employee and if there is disputed question of facts, the same has to be adjudicated by adducing evidence before appropriate Industrial Tribunal for Labour Court. Even otherwise the Appellants being daily wager have no legal right for absorption except in accordance with law and Rules. Admittedly the Appellants have worked only for some days in number of years from 1984 to 1993 as stated above and nor for 240 days or more in a calendar year. For the reasons above, we do not find any illegality and infirmity in the reasoning given in the judgment impugned in this appeal. The Appellants are admittedly not working since 1994 and for this reason also they cannot be granted relief of reinstatement with continuity of service into the authority of the administration of National Airport Authority of India, Civil Aviation Training, College Bamrauli, Allahabad. However, this observation may not be treated to adversely affect the Appellants as it has been informed that they are engaged by the Contractor in the aforesaid establishment.

(3.) The appeal is accordingly dismissed.