SANDEEP VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Dr. R.G. Padia, Senior Advocate with Sri Prakash Padia, Sri V.K. Shukla, Sri Ashish Mohan for the petitioners, Sri A.K. Misra and Sri Y.K. Saxena for the respondents. Pleadings on behalf of both the parties are complete and as agreed by Counsel for both the parties, these writ petitions are being finally decided.

(2.) ALL these writ petitions are based on common facts and questions of law hence they are being decided together by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 370 of 2000 is being treated as leading case in which elaborate arguments have been made by both the parties. Since facts and grounds raised in all the writ petitions are common, it is sufficient to refer to the facts of the Writ Petition No. 370 of 2000 for deciding the controversy between the parties.

(3.) BY this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus commending the Respondents No. 1 to 3 to regularise the services of the petitioners by directly absorbing them. A further mandamus has been sought commanding the Respondents No. 1 to 3 to reinstate the petitioners in the services in the office of Respondent No. 3 as principal employer. A further prayer has been made commanding the respondents to pay monthly salary as per the Minimum Wages Act or as being paid to the regular employees. In Paragraph 2 of the writ petition it has been stated that the writ petition is being filed claiming regularisation of their services against the Principal Employer i.e. The Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. The claim of regularisation of services is based on judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Suresh and others, JT -1999 (2) SC 435. Petitioners No. 1 to 4 claims to be working as Junior Assistant (Clerks), Petitioners No. 5 to 7 as peons, Petitioner No. 8 as Electrician, Petitioner No. 9 as Sweeper, Petitioner No. 10 as Security Supervisor and Petitioner No. 11 as Security Guard with the Respondent No. 3 through the Contractor -Respondent No. 4. It is claimed that the petitioners are working continuously as per Chart (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) with Respondent No. 3 through the Contractor M/s. Man Power Services and Security. Annexure 11 to the writ petition shows that all the petitioners are claiming their working from different dates from 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 upto 30th December, 1999/31 -12 -1999. It is pleaded that the petitioners were not permitted to function with effect from 3rd January, 2000. It is further pleaded that the job being performed by the petitioners is of perennial and permanent nature. Reference has also been made to the letter dated 29th September, 1999 written by the Joint Secretary of Respondent No. 3 to the Head Office, New Delhi requesting for appointment of regular staff on twenty seven posts of Junior Assistant and 14 posts of peon. Petitioners claimed that on the basis of judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board, the services of the petitioners are liable to be regularised and they are entitled to be absorbed in regular service by Principal Employer. Petitioners have also filed copy of Attendance Sheet along with the writ petition to show their working. Certain documents to show their working with Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office, Allahabad has also been attached along with the writ petition.