R.P. Yadav, J.@mdashThis petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 8.1.2002, contained in Annexure No. 1, to the writ petition and the oral termination order dated 11.3.2002 and for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioners to continue on the posts on which they were working prior to passing of the impugned order and to pay them salary and allowances as they were being paid earlier.
2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, that petitioners No. 1 and 3, were engaged on daily wages with effect from 1.11.1997 and petitioners No. 2 and 4 were engaged as daily wagers with effect from 1.5.1998. From the date of engagement, they had been working regularly and instead of regularising their services in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Regulation of Appointments) Adhyadesh, 2001, their services have been terminated by the oral order consequent to the order dated 8.1.2002, passed by the Director Agriculture, U.P. (Annexure1). It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that the petitioners having been in continuous service and 23 vacancies on Class IV post being available in the agriculture department, they were entitled to continue against those posts, which are existing in the department but they have been thrown out of the job for no rhyme or reason. To support of his argument the learned Counsel has cited the following authorities :
In Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd and another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another, 1986 (3) SCC 156, which was a case of company where the question of term in contract of employment as also service rules of the company providing for termination of services of permanent employees without assigning reasons on three months'' notice or pay in lieu thereof on either side was involved for consideration. The question of meaning of ''State'' under Article 12 of the Constitution and also certain provisions of contract were interpreted and considered.
In Delhi Transport Corporation v. D. T. C. Mazdoor Congress and others, 1991 Suppl (1) SCC 600, the Hon''ble Supreme Court considered the service condition of the employees of public undertakings, statutory corporations or other instrumentalities of State covered by Article 12. The question of principle of natural justice was also considered and it was held that it forms integral part of Article 14 and includes right to fair treatment.
However, in both these cases, the question of right of daily wagers was not considered and so these case are of no help in deciding the present case.
3. In Jacob M. Puthuparambil and others v. Kerala Water Authority and others, 1991 (1) Supreme Court Cases 28, the question of regularisation of employees serving for a reasonably long period and having requisite qualifications for the job was considered with reference to preamble and directive principles contained in Part IV of the Constitution.
4. In Dharwad Distt. P. W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association and others v. State of Karantaka and others, 1990 (2) Supreme Court Cases 396 and State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others, 1992 (4) Supreme Court Cases 118, the question of regularisation of casual workers working continuously for a long period under the ''State'' and the question of equal pay for equal work was involved.
5. In Piara Singh''s case it was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that where ad hoc or temporary employee is continuing for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State.
6. In another case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others, 1992 (2) Supreme Court Cases 99, the question of the persons working under Temporary Government Scheme (Jawahar Rozgar Yojna) was considered and it was held therein that the persons working under the said scheme have no right for regularisation of their services because of completion of 240 or more days of work indiscriminate regularisation jeopardises public interest.
7. Learned Standing Counsel referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit has submitted that the petitioners were engaged as labourers/Sweeper (Sharamik/Safai Karmi), subject to the availability of the work and that they were attached to the residence of the then Agriculture Minister for the purpose of sweeping and other menial work and that the term of the cabinet expired and the services of the petitioners were no more required and that they were both appointed against any sanctioned post, when there was no work, they stood automatically disengaged. All payments made to them were from the Head ''wages''. It is also urged that the petitioners No. 1 and 3 have been working since November, 1997 as daily wager; whereas the petitioners No. 2 and 4 have been working as Labourer/Sweeper since May, 1998 and Annexure No. 3 and 4 filed by the petitioners are not genuine documents. It is also submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that since the term of the cabinet came to end, their services were no more required and that the daily wager has no right either for regularisation or absorption on any other posts because the appointment on daily wage basis is not an appointment to a post according to the Rules.
8. Reliance is placed on the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Suresh Kumar Verma, JT 1996 (2) SC 456, wherein it was held that "Appointment on daily wage basis is not an appointment to a post according to the Rules. The project in which respondents were engaged had come to an end and therefore, they have necessarily been terminated for want of work. The Court cannot give any directions to reengage them in any other work or appoint them against existing vacancies".
9. The case of State of U.P. and others v. Ajay Kumar, 1997 (4) Supreme Court Cases 88, has also been to, wherein it was held that "there must exist a post and either administrative instructions or statutory rules must be in operation to appoint a person to the post. Daily wage appointment will obviously be in relation to contingent establishment in which there cannot exist any post and it continues so long as the work exists. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court was clearly in error in directing the appellant to regularise the service of the respondent, who was working as Nursing Orderly on daily wages, to the post as and when the vacancy arises and to continue him until then".
10. It is clear from the material on that the petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis for performing sweeping and other menial work at the residence of the then Agriculture Minister and that the term of the cabinet expired and the then Agriculture Minister Shri Divakar Misra ceased to be a minister, the petitioners also, therefore, ceased to work.
11. It appears from the letter of P. A. to the then Agriculture Minister that the petitioners were directed to report to the Deputy Director, Agriculture (Headquarters). However, there being no work, they were not permitted to work. There is no document produced on behalf of the petitioners to show that they were appointed by the Director, Agriculture, U.P. or under his direction, whereas Annexure1 has been passed by the Director, Agriculture, U.P. and applies to those who were appointed by the Director, Agriculture, U.P. either on daily wage basis or on contract or on ad doc interim arrangement. The petitioners were not appointed by the Director, Agriculture, U.P., so it is not applicable to them and the question for its quashing does not arise. There is no appointment order filed by the petitioners. The orders (Annexure No. 3 and 4) were issued by the Care Taker (Head Quarters) (genuineness of which has been disputed by the opposite parties) attaching the petitioners to work at the residence of the then Agriculture Minister as daily wagers. They were not appointed against any sanctioned post. Case of the opposite parties is that they were not appointed under any rules or under any executive directions and were engaged on daily wage basis subject to the availability of work, hence the daily wagers had no claim to continue, specially when the purpose with which they were engaged came to an end on the expiry of the term of the cabinet. They have no right to be appointed on any post even if existing in the department of agriculture.
12. The cessation of engagement of the petitioners was not under the provisions of ordinance or due to the order passed by the Director. It was due to nonavailability of work and the petitioners had no right for regularisation or appointment on Class IV post. The authorities to by the learned Counsel are not applicable to their case.
13. There is no force in the petition, which to be dismissed.
14. The petition is dismissed.
15. However, if the petitioners move any representation to the opposite parties for considering their case for appointment on Class IV post, their representations shall be considered sympathetically, in view of the services by them as daily wagers, if otherwise permissible under the Rules/Government Orders.
