SURENDRA KUMAR TYAGI Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, counter affidavits have been filed by respondent and both the learned counsel have agreed that the writ petition may be decided finally at this stage.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 20th March, 1991 Annexure-1 to the writ petition as Horticulture Inspector by respondeujt Ghaziabad Development Authority on contract basis for a period of one year on a fixed salary of Rs. 1394 and in respect of the gardening work of Indrapuram project. The period of one year expired in March, 1992. However petitioner continued to work on the post till 6th September, 1993 on which date his services were terminated vide order Annexure-5 to the writ petition on the simple ground that the period of contract of the petitioner has come to an end and the services are no more required by respondent. Aggrieved by this order petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and has claimed that the order may be declared illegal and void and to treat the petitioner as Horticulture Inspector and to pay salary including arrears.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner however relying on case of State of Haryana v. Pyara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2132 has submitted that as petitioner has worked for more than a year he is entitled for regularisation on the post. Reliance has been placed on the guidelines mentioned in paragraph no. 25 of aforesaid judgment However in my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled on any basis even under the observations made by Honourable Supreme Court in the above judgment. The petitioner has not been able to show that any post of Horticulture Inspector has been created on which petitioner can be appointed or regularised. LEARNED counsel has submitted that as post of Horticulture Inspector is now outside the purview of the Centralised Service Rules the creation of post is not dependant on the State Government and the respondent can itself create the past. Further on basis of the letters Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition addressed by the Garden Superintendent it has been submitted that respondent still requires services of the petitioner, he is entitled to be regularised. In my opinion, since the appointment was ad-hoc contractual, it will not be appropriate to issue any direction to respondent to regularise petitioner in service and the only relief which can be given to petitioner following the judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 2070 is that respondent may be required to consider the continuance of the petitioner on the post sympathetically if his services are really needed. Paragraphs no. 26 and 27 of the aforesaid judgment: are very relevant for the purpose and are being quoted below :