VIVEK SINGH Vs. MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the practice adopted by the respondents in limiting the appointment for a fixed period. A further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue till regular appointments are made in accordance with law. It has further been prayed that salary and allowances, which are being paid to the regular employees, be also paid to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment.

(2.) Having perused the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that as far as the first prayer of the petitioner is concerned, no such directions could now be issued in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, 2006 4 SCC 1 as well as a detailed judgment of this Court in the case of Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2006 3 SCT 838. Therefore, the instant petition, in so far as, it seeks issuance of direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue till the regular appointments are made, is dismissed.

(3.) Having dismissed the petition to the above extent, we take notice of the fact that the respondents have been filling up posts on ad hoc basis for the last over 6-7 years, which would amply highlight that work of the post exists. The petitioner has been paid salary for less than those who are regularly appointed although he might be discharging similar or same duties. Therefore, we are inclined to issue direction in accordance with the view taken by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Umadevi's case . In para 55 of Umadevi's case a limited relief has been given to the petitioner. Firstly, it has been held that the daily wage employees shall be given the minimum of the pay scale and secondly if sanctioned posts are vacant, the State was to take immediate steps for filling up those posts by a regular process of selection and those who are working on daily wages were to be granted permission to compete by waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment. It has further been held that some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time was to be granted. Para 55 of the judgment in Umadevi's case reads as under :-