HARMEET KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working in the office of the District Public Relations Officer, Kapurthala, as an actress on casual appointment. She was initially appointed as a casual employee on 24-12-1979. The case of the petitioner is that she had been working as an actress under appointments made from time to time after notional breaks. Certain posts of actors and actresses were advertised by the Government of Punjab and interview was held for selection in March 1987. The petitioner claims that she had been selected but somehow her name did not appear in the merit list because the merit list was changed. She however, continued to work on casual basis. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition with a prayer that her services should be regularized. As she was working since 1979 and her services are yet to be regularized after 12 years of service, she has put forward a claim for regularization in the light of Government instructions dated 7-5.1993 (Annexure P-2).

(2.) The petitioner is said to have been again called for interview on 17-1-1994 after certain posts were advertised by the Government. She is stated to have been placed now in the waiting list.

(3.) Since the petitioner has been working on contract basis and she has been paid remuneration not on the basis on monthly salary but at the rate of Rs.100/- per performance, therefore, she is not entitled to the benefit of regularisation. A question, regarding regularization in a case of appointment made on contract basis, came to be examined by the Supreme Court in Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. V/s. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava, 1992 AIR(SC) 2070. It has been held in para 20 of the judgment as under :-