UTTAM MAJUMDAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being a casual mazdoor has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to make him permanent employee upon regularization of his service.

(2.) The petitioner claimed to be appointed as casual mazdoor in Damodar Valley Corporation on 28.4.1989 for the purpose of line patrolling but he has been directed to work in the different departments in different capacity as per the instruction of the concerned officer issued from time to time. It is further contended that he discharged his duty diligently and to the fullest satisfaction of his employer and have also averted major disaster by extinguishing fire which erupted in one of the sub-station at Gomo on 25.7.2000. For such bravious attempt the petitioner received appreciation from the high officials of said corporation. Although several representations were made for permanent absorbtion as well as sincere discharge of the duties, but the respondent authorities did not regularised the service of the petitioner. It is further contended that despite recommendations for the regularization of his service by the different officials of the Damodar Valley Corporation as well as a Member of Parliament but the authorities rejected the aforesaid recommendations on the ground that the same would violate the statutory rules provided for the recruitment and appointment. However a case of discrimination is made by the petitioner by stating that three of the employees who were casual workers were absorbed permanently without following the rules.

(3.) In affidavit-in-opposition the respondent nos. 2-7 contended that the services of the petitioner was availed till the year 2003 and thereafter the petitioner is not working either as a casual labourer or daily wager in the Damodar Valley Corporation. It is further contended that after the judgement delivered by the Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors., 2006 4 JT 420 the petitioner cannot claim regularization of his service as a contract/casual labourer and the person named by the petitioner to have been employed were absorbed prior to the said decision of the apex court.