CHANDRA PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. ADDL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a typist on daily wages in the integrated rural development programme w.e.f. 1.12.1986 by A.D.M. (Project) vide its order dated 5.12.1986. He was continued with breaks in between upto 16.10.1989. During the period he worked, he was paid daily wages. On 17.10.1989, it is alleged that his services were terminated on oral orders of A.D.M. (Project). In the present petition, he has challenged termination of his services and is seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner in service since 17.10.1989 as a regular typist and to pay him salary.

(2.) This Court vide its order dated 23.11.1990, after giving opportunity to the respondents to file counter-affidavit, passed orders to the effect that the petitioner shall be allowed to join and continue on the post of typist, on which he was working within a period of one week, and that he shall be paid his salary from month to month. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of opposite party, in which it has been stated that petitioner was appointed on daily wages for fixed tenure of limited period. The work for which he was appointed in the integrated rural development programme has ceased as such he could not be appointed further. Replying to the question of discrimination, it has been stated in para 9 that Sheo Chandra is no more in service and Ram Chandra Dohre is still in service on the strength of his tenure fixed in his appointment letter, but his services have not been regularised as there is no permanent post of typist under the programme. It appears that petitioner was not paid his salary and as such he filed an application on which an order was passed on 23.5.1996 directing the respondents that if petitioner has been allowed to join, he shall be paid his salary or the respondents shall show cause. The matter came up again on 3.10.1996 and this Court directed that since no counter-affidavit has been filed on the application for payment of salary, the respondents are directed to pay salary to the petitioner on the post of typist month by month. It appears thereafter a contempt petition was filed and in compliance with the orders passed in contempt petition, the Chief Development Officer vide its order dated 23.12.1995 gave regular appointment to the petitioner w.e.f. 24.8.1996. In supplementary counter-affidavit of Ravi Kumar, Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Hamirpur, it has been stated that the order dated 23.12.1995 passed by Chief Development Officer, Hamirpur, was cancelled by the District Magistrate and it was made clear that petitioner Chandra Prakash Gupta shall continue on work on daily wages. Petitioner filed a listing application on 17.8.2000 with which he has annexed an order of District Magistrate, Hamirpur, dated 29.7.1997 by which in compliance with the order dated 7.5.1997 in Contempt Petition No. 2093 of 1996, the District Magistrate has given appointment to the petitioner w.e.f. 24.8.1996 in the pay-scale of Rs. 950-1,500. This order has been passed on the threat and in compliance of the contempt and cannot be treated to be passed by appointing authority, on his own, after following any procedure of appointment.

(3.) Heard Sri A. A. Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. It has been stated by counsel for the petitioner, that although petitioner was appointed on daily wages but his services were continued from time to time with artificial breaks and that he has worked more than 240 days in a calendar year. He has further stated that one Ram Chandra Dohre was appointed for a period of one month, who was junior to the petitioner, but was given ad hoc appointment up to the period regular selection is made. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon order dated 29.7.1997 passed by District Magistrate by which the petitioner was given appointment on the post of typist in regular pay-scale and has claimed that by the said order, he has been regularly appointed w.e.f. 28.4.1996 whereas he should have been appointed w.e.f. 17.10.1989. Petitioner has also relied upon the judgment in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130, and has submitted that the employees should not be kept temporary or ad hoc for a long time and that such long appointments presume that there is need for regular service. Lastly it has been submitted that there are two posts of typist lying vacant since long and that petitioner has right to continue on the said post.