SIMA DUTTA Vs. COAL INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the ground that the petitioner is working since 1995 for 240 days a year continuously the petitioner claims regularisation. Mr. Panja, the learned Counsel for the petitioner had pointed out in detail that how the service of the petitioner was extended on account of being indispensable because of absence of any typist in the department in support of which he had produced the documents which he craves leave to submit through affidavit at a later point of time. It is also pointed out that pursuant to an order passed earlier by this Court on a writ petition moved by the petitioner her case was considered and she was offered appointment which is still continuing. On account of such continuation relying on various decisions cited by him Mr. Panja contended that the interim order would be continued subject to filing of affidavit by the respective parties. He also contends that he wants to file affidavit in support of his contention. Mr. Kar, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has made an oral prayer for vacating the interim order. In fact both the Counsel had addressed the Court at length for more than an hour. Mr. Kar had, however relied on the affidavit in opposition filed in the earlier writ petition to which he had made a reference as was recorded in the order dated 4th Aug., 1999 passed in the writ petition No. 2549 of 1996 and contended that the petitioner was not engaged against any sanctioned post nor she had been recruited through regular process and that as a casual labour she has no right to the post or regularisation dehors the Rules. Mr. Panja, however, pointed out that the respondents had allowed her to continue for a long time and as such in view of the decision cited by him she should be absorbed.

(2.) In fact both the learned Counsels had addressed the Court on merit for a long time. It appears that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of her own application to the extent that having learnt about the vacancy of the post she had applied sometimes in 7th July, 1995 In reply thereto she was engaged as casual worker for a period of six months through the letter dated 10th July, 1995. Thereafter on 12th Dec., 1995 the petitioner was asked for extension of her service and her service was extended from time to time and it continued. On 3rd of July, 1996 recommendation was made for her regularisation for the post of typist-cum-clerk on account of completion of 240 days of work, as is apparent from Annexure P-7. Subsequently, by a letter dated 8th July, 1996 while consideration was under process for regularisation of her appointment, her appointment was recommended to be continued which is Annexure P-8. By the order dated 10th July, 1996 she was granted extension for three months from the said date. The petitioner had been applying for regularisation of her service. She was again granted extension of another two months which is Annexure P-ll which was further extended for two months by Annexure P-12. The petitioner claims reasonable expectation for being aborbed by successive letter unsuccessfully. Therefore, she had approached this Court through W.P. No. 2549 of 1996 since disposed of on 4th Aug., 1999. In the said judgment the case of the respective parties have been mentioned and the prayers made in the writ petition were also quoted. It is almost the same prayers which is made here in this case. After having considered respective cases, this Court did not pass any order with regard to the claim of the petitioner except that her case should be considered sympathetically by passing a reasoned order within the time stipulated. Pursuant to such direction petitioner's case was considered on Sept. 22, 1999 and she was offered a fresh appointment purely of temporary basis at a consolidated salary of Rs. 1800 per month for a period of 1 year. It was pointed out that on completion of the said period the petitioner shall have no right to claim for permanent absorption. Though however, her case may be reviewed and considered subject to the requirement and observance of procedures. In the said letter it was pointed out that if the terms are acceptable, in that event, the petitioner may signify the same. Through her letter dated 15th Oct., 1999 the petitioner had accepted the said offer subject to the order of the High Court. Subsequently, the petitioner had acquired further qualification with regard to the Computer and System Operation and had been claiming regularisation. Though the said one year period had expired in Sept., 2000, yet the petitioner is still continuing in service but her regularisation is not being made despite several representations Therefore, she had approached this Court once again.

(3.) The question that arises in this case is as to whether petitioner can claim any right of absorption. By reason of the order dated 4th Aug., 1999 passed in Writ Petition No. 2549 of 1996 it appears that the petitioner's case was fully considered but no conclusion was arrived at except directing consideration of the petitioners case. This might be explained in two manners. (1) That the Court had kept all the points open and directed consideration of representation and the other (2) that constructively, no conclusion having been arrived at it shall be deemed to have been refused. On either of these constructions of the said order, the matter has to proceed. However, now we may proceed with the first proposition that it was kept open instead of the constructive construction that the case was decided.