LUXMI RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners Laxmi Raj Singh and Anil Kumar were appointed as Enumerators vide appointment order dated September 1, 1989(Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The appointment order was issued pursuant to recommendation made by the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose. The appointment, however, was made temporarily for a fixed period of 8 months and on a consolidated pay of Rs. 1,200/- per month. Pursuant to the said appointment order, the petitioners joined their duties as Enumerators w.e.f. September 6, 1980. It appears that, although the petitioners were appointed for a period of 8 months, but their appointments were extended from time to time and they worked and discharged their duties till July, 1990, whereafter they were prevented from signing the attendance register and were thus retrenched. It is alleged in paragraph 9 of the writ petition that the work carried out by the opposite parties is in the nature of business and trade and as such the respondent, department/establishment, in which the petitioners were employed, is an "industry" within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners, it is alleged in the writ petition, are workmen within the meaning of Section 2 (a) of the Act and the action on the part of the respondents in preventing the petitioners from discharging their duties after July 31, 1986, it is further alleged, amounts to retrenchment and the same having not been done in the manner prescribed by Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is vitiated by error of law and the petitioners, it is submitted by their learned counsel, are entitled to be reinstated.

(2.) I have heard Sri B.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, at some length.

(3.) It is evident from a perusal of the appointment order that the petitioners were appointed for a specified period of time and the appointment was purely temporary. In Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava, (1993-II- LLJ-190)(SC) it has been ruled by the Supreme Court that where the appointment is contractual and by efflux of time it comes to an end and the appointee can have no right to continue in the post. In answer to the question as to whether the continuance of service of such an appointee from time to time on 'ad hoc' basis for more than a year entitles him to claim regularisation, the Supreme Court held that since the appointment was purely on ad hoc and contractual basis for a limited period therefore, by expiry of the stipulated period, the right to remain in the post came to an end.