ANIL KUMAR PACHAURI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the order dated 1.11.2011 has been recalled vide order of date, on the request of learned counsel for the parties the Court proceed to decide the matter finally.

(2.) The only relief sought in the writ petition is that the petitioner be directed to consider for regularization on the post of Draftsman. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged from time to time for a fixed tenure on a daily wage basis and after September, 1993 his engagement was not extended. The term of fixed term employee automatically comes to an end by efflux of time and in such a case, even a termination order is not required. The Apex Court in the case of Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. v. Pushpa Srivastava, 1992 AIR(SC) 2070, has held that appointment made for a fixed term comes to an end by efflux of time after expiry of the period of appointment. There is no question of termination of service after expiry of the aforesaid period since the incumbent has no right to continue in the absence of an order of appointment after such period.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that the person similarly situated to the petitioner were considered for regularization and in this regard he relied on Government Order dated 29.10.1989 and 27.2.1990, copies of the same have been filed as Annexures S.A.2 and 3 to the supplementary affidavit. A perusal of the Government Order dated 29th October, 1989 shows that it talks of only for regular payment if a person has continuously worked for three years and has completed 240 days in each year. It also talks of a proposal for creation of additional regular appointment but does not talk of any regularization without following the procedure prescribed in statute. Similarly, Government Order dated 27.2.1990 only talks of creation of temporary post to be utilized for the purpose of regularization on daily wage basis and as such by itself does not provide for regularization. Admittedly, petitioner was initially recruited without following the procedure prescribed in statute. He also relied on a decision of this Court in Jai Prakash and others v. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No. 19947 of 1995.