SOMA KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are seeking issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioners and to regularise their services.

(2.) THE petitioners have averred in the petitions that they were engaged as Daily Wagers on 28th August, 1995 to work as Data Operators/Computer Operators with the assurance extended by the Respondent No.3 that their services will be regularised against permanent vacancies. The Respondent No.3 has now declared that they shall be ousted as their services are no more required. Feeling aggrieved of that threat, the petitioners have filed the petitions praying that Respondent No, 3 is bent upon to terminate the services of the petitioners without assigning any reason, which shall be against the law and the principles of natural justice and that the proper course is to regularise the services of the petitioners as they have remained engaged continuously for over one and half year.

(3.) THE Respondents have filed the objections stating therein that the work of maintenance of G.P.Fund Accounts pertaining to the employees of State Government was being done by the respondents. It was taken over by the State Government with effect from 1.4.1986 and the answering respondents were required to transfer the balances as on 31st March, 1986 to J&K State Funds Organisation. This job could not be done because of the on -going militancy and various other reasons, therefore, the target was fixed to complete the balance work by the respondents till June, 1994. Because of the Head Office at Srinagar, the desired target could not be achieved and a part of the work, in order to achieve the target, was shifted to Jammu in Feb. 1995. Additionally, another step was taken by the respondents to computerise the work, for which the services of some typists were hired on Daily Wages including the petitioners. Therefore, with the completion of the work in August/September, 1996, the answering respondents had no alternative but to disengage the services of the petitioners as no work is left to be done by them. Regular staff available with the respondents is sufficient enough to complete the residual work. The petitioners were employed on daily wage basis and were being paid the wages from the Contingent Grant available with the respondents and also were being paid for the period they have worked. The engagement of the petitioners as Daily Wagers does not give them any cause for seeking their regularisation under any provision of law.