Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 465 (ALL)

Ram Kripal Patel v. State of U. P.

2004-03-04

RAKESH TIWARI

body2004
RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition for direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of wages to the petitioner with effect from 1. 9. 1991 till date and to pass necessary formal appointment letter appointing him as Office assistant and further regularize him against vacancy to be caused in future. ( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working in the Accounts Section of respondent University with effect from 1. 9. 1991 on the basis of alleged instructions of some officers of the Accounts Branch/the Registrar of the University as daily wager. ( 4 ) THE State Government in the year 1998 sanctioned 215 posts including those of the Office assistants to the University. ( 5 ) THE Vice Chancellor of the University constituted a Committee for examination of cases of the employees for appointment and regularization of the employees working on muster roll on daily wage basis. The Committee met on 13. 8. 2001 and regularized several muster roll employees allegedly by adopting pick and choose method. The petitioner claims that he is entitled for appointment and payment of his salary and regularization against the available post of Office Assistant as he is senior to some of those, who have been approved. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has claimed that he is working in the office of Registrar of the University since 1. 9. 1991 continuously. He filed a large number of office notes to establish that his appointment is valid. The University has filed counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit wherein it had categorically stated that the petitioner was never appointed in the University in any department. There was no order of the Registrar nor of approval of the Vice Chancellor for his engagement as daily wager. The documents annexed by the petitioner are fabricated and manufactured documents. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the University referred to Annexure-4, which indicates, that only comment from the Accounts Officer was invited. Annexure-5 referes to one P. K. Patel, who is a permanent employee and there is no reference about the petitioner in it. The documents annexed by the petitioner are fabricated and manufactured documents. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the University referred to Annexure-4, which indicates, that only comment from the Accounts Officer was invited. Annexure-5 referes to one P. K. Patel, who is a permanent employee and there is no reference about the petitioner in it. Annexure-7 is merely a recommendation for the appointment of the petitioner, which was not accepted by the Registrar, there is no approval of the Vice Chancellor for appointment of petitioner at any time. Annexure-9 of the writ petition shows that till 5. 11. 1994 the petitioner was not engaged even on daily wage basis. It is submitted that allegation of the petitioner that he was engaged in 1991 is totally false. Annexure-11 of the writ petition shows that it was merely a recommendation. His name has been disclosed in the office note dated 16. 8. 1994. In para 3 of the rejoinder affidavit, it is stated that he was appointed by the then Registrar on 6. 2. 1992. Annexures-5 and 6 of the rejoinder affidavit indicate that during the examination, coordinator was authorized to take work from extra hands, who are not the employees of the University. Annexure-SCA-1 shows that the assistant Registrar (Accounts), Accounts Officer and the Finance Officer on 16. 3. 2002 certified that Sri P. K. Patel has made a proposal for engagement of petitioner on daily wage basis, which was not approved by the Vice Chancellor. ( 8 ) THUS the stand of the University is that the appointment of the petitioner was never approved. The appointing authority of petitioner is Registrar with the approval of the Vice Chancellor there is no approval of the Vice Chancellor on the record nor there is any order of the Registrar. Thus there is no evidence to show that petitioner was even appointed validity. ( 9 ) THE University has not framed any specific rules to govern the recruitment and regularization of class-Ill employees. No rule has been placed to show that approval of Vice Chancellor is necessary for appointment of a daily wager. The petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions :-1. In Gujrat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar and Ors. ( 9 ) THE University has not framed any specific rules to govern the recruitment and regularization of class-Ill employees. No rule has been placed to show that approval of Vice Chancellor is necessary for appointment of a daily wager. The petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions :-1. In Gujrat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar and Ors. , (2001) 1 UPLBEC 834, in which the Honble Supreme Court has held that where a workman continues to work for many years, he is entitled to be regularized even though he may not have been appointed on regular basis or in accordance with the recruitment rules. 2. In Hindustan Machine Tools v. Rangareddy, (2001) 1 UPLBEC 70, wherein the Apex Court has held that where the employer has not framed scheme for regularization, of daily wages the employer must frame a scheme for regularization of such employees. ( 10 ) IT is submitted that in view of the said judgment of the Honble Supreme Court the petitioner is entitled for direction to the respondent-University to frame scheme for regularization with him a specified time and regularize the petitioner. The Counsel for petitioner submitted that under the doctrine of quantum meruit which Honble H. G. Hanbury of the University of Oxford in his book modern Equity (English Edition) at page 667 has explained as under :-" quantum meruit" : If a has done work for b even under an unenforceable, void of abortive contract, he can recover the value of his services. Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act also imposes an obligation on the University to pay to the petitioner for his services. It is further submitted that the petitioner should have been treated equally with other employees of the University, who were regularized. The learned Counsel also argued that according to doctrine of legitimate expectations : the petitioner should be appointed on regular basis which he expectated. He has done the work on the University with hope of reward in terms of the payment of wages. The petitioner is said to leave worked for the respondent for period of about 12 years for which he has not been paid so far. The petitioner had expected that the respondent University will treat him in accordance with law in natural course of matter. The petitioner is said to leave worked for the respondent for period of about 12 years for which he has not been paid so far. The petitioner had expected that the respondent University will treat him in accordance with law in natural course of matter. " ( 11 ) COUNSEL for the respondents has relied upon case of Dhannu Lal v. Vice Chancellor, (1994)1 UPLBEC 435 and M. D. UP Land Development Corporation and Anr. v. Amar Singh and Ors. , and submitted that the facts of those case are similar to the facts of the present case. In that case there was no appointment by Registrar with the approval of Vice Chancellor was issued. Similar law has been laid down in case of Puranjit Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 471. ( 12 ) IT is settled law that this Court cannot issue mandamus to issue appointment letter to the petitioner. It is also evident from record that the petitioner was never engaged by a competent authority of the University. Engagement of petitioner as daily wager is doubtfull. The University has never paid wages to the petitioner. Thus all facts are highly disputed which cannot be decided in petition and require evidence. In the facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case for consideration under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 13 ) THE petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. . .