TAPAS GHOSH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application is directed against the action of the respondents in not absorbing and/or appointing the petitioner Group 'D' employee in the service of the Defence Research and Development Organisation, Defence Research & Development Unit, Hastings, Calcutta- 700002.

(2.) The grievances of the petitioner are as follows : On or about in the month of November, 1985, the petitioner was appointed in the Ministry of Defence, Defence Research and Development Organisation, Defence Research & Development Unit, as casual labour and he had discharged his duties to the satisfaction of the authorities. In this connection reference may be made to the certificate of Lt. Col. R. M. Reddy who certified on January 29, 1988 that the petitioner worked in the Defence Research and Development Unit, Hastings, as a casual mazdoor from November 1985 to November 1988 in intermittent intervals. The certifying officer recorded that the petitioner is sincere, hard working, obedient, loyal and bears a good moral character to the best of his knowledge. Sometimes the petitioner also worked as clerk-cum-typist under the said Defence Research and Development Unit. Since the appointment, as stated above, the petitioner duly discharged his duties and thereafter he was allowed to work during the period of two years covering 240 days a year consecutively and in the first year 43 days in the year 1986 293 days and in the year 1987 311 days and the total number of days worked is 647 days. The petitioner claimed that his case merits effective and active consideration by the authorities for regularisation of service by application of the Government Circulars which, inter alia, provides that those who have discharged functions for 240 days consecutively in two years, their cases should be considered for regularisation and their services should not be terminated.

(3.) In the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, Mr. Ghosh appearing in support of the application submitted that the decision of the authorities for disengagement of the petitioner from service with effect from the month of December 1987 is wholly unjustified and contrary to law. It is also claimed by Mr. Ghosh that when law specifically provides for regularisation of the case of the concerned persons who has discharged duties and functions for 240 days consecutively in two years, the authorities concerned cannot and should not terminate the service of such employee. The action of the respondents in not regularising and/ or absorbing the petitioner in service is wholly dehors the Government Circulars which subsequently during the course of hearing was placed before this Court.