Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1162 (GUJ)

Laxman Bhikubhai Parmar v. Union of India

2014-12-16

R.P.DHOLARIA, V.M.SAHAI

body2014
ORDER : Vijay Manohar Sahai, J. We have heard Ms.Vidita Jayswal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed by appointment letter dated 14.1.2003 on temporary and ad hoc basis for a period of three months from the date he accepts appointment offer. The terms of appointment clearly state that appointment was purely on temporary basis for a period of three months or till the regular vacancy is filled up whichever is earlier. Another condition was that said appointment will not accrue any right on the petitioner to claim regular appointment and his services can be terminated at any time without notice from either side. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner continued in service for a period of about four years as services were extended from time to time and he has been disengaged from service by order dated 26.4.2007 with effect from forenoon on 27.4.2007. 3. The petitioner challenged his termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.157 of 2007. The O.A. has been dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 19.11.2008 as the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of service and reinstatement was not found to be correct and in accordance with law relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi [2006 SCC [L&S] 753]. Paragraph 11 of the order of the Tribunal is extracted below.: "11. It is also contended that as he has worked for more than three years, his services need to be regularised. The Constitution Bench in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, [2006 SCC [L&S] 753] has held- "26. With respect, why should the State be allowed to depart from the normal rule and indulge in temporary employment in permanent posts? This Court, in our view, is bound to insist on the State making regular and proper recruitments and is bound not to insist on the State making regular and proper recruitments and is bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent transgression of the rules of regular recruitment. The direction to make permanent - the distinction between regularisation and making permanent, was not emphasised here - can only encourage the State, the model employer, to flout its own rules and would confer undue benefits on a few at the cost of many waiting to compete. The direction to make permanent - the distinction between regularisation and making permanent, was not emphasised here - can only encourage the State, the model employer, to flout its own rules and would confer undue benefits on a few at the cost of many waiting to compete. With respect, the direction made in para 50 (of SCC) of Piara Sigh is to some extent inconsistent with the conclusion in para 45 (of SCC) therein. With great respect, it appears to us that the last of the directions clearly runs counter to the constitutional scheme of employment recognised in the earlier part of the decision. Really, it cannot be said that this decision has laid down the law that all ad hoc, temporary or casual employees engaged without following the regular recruitment procedure should be made permanent." 4. Since the petitioner was appointed on temporary and ad hoc basis for a period of three months which was extended from time to time, no right accrued to the petitioner to claim regular appointment and services of the petitioner could be terminated at any time. Three posts of Peon in MMD, Mumbai were abolished and, therefore, there was no post on which the petitioner could be continued as Peon in service. 5. For the aforesaid reason, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.