CHANNEY LAL Vs. DIRECTOR MALARIA RESERCH CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner allege to have been employed on daily wage basis in a project under the Indian Council of Medical research, an organized body of the Union of India at Shankergarh.

(2.) Mr. Ali Murtaza, holding brief of Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi submits that the project is still continuing yet the petitioners have been asked not to report on duty from 13.12.1991 orally, on 12th December, 1991. He contends that since the petitioners had been working for more than three years, they have acquired a right to be considered for being regularized. He, secondly, contends that the petitioners are still continuing without any break and have completed 24 days in a year. Their services could not be terminated. He also contends that since the petitioners were holding temporary posts, therefore, article 311 is very much attracted and as such, the termination of service of the petitioners cannot be sustained. He relied on the decision in the case of P. I. Dhingra. Vs. Union of India (AIR 1953 SC 36) in support of his contention that Article 311 is also attracted in respect of temporary posts since it does not make any distinction between a person holding permanent or temporary posts.

(3.) In support of his contention that the petitioners are eligible for being considered for regularization, he had relied on a decision in the case of State of Haryana. Vs. Piara Singh (AIR 1992 SC 2130). He particularly relied on the ratio decided in paragragh 17 of the said decision. On these grounds, he cLalms that the writ petition should be allowed and the petitioners should be reinstated.