1. The petitioners have sought a mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize them as permanent Pump Operator in Nagar Palika Parishad, District Bahraich.
2. It appears that the petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis on 15.04.1988, 28.04.1988, 26.03.1990 and 01.12.1990 respectively.
3. It is contended that since they worked for 240 days in a year and have worked for more than three years therefore they are entitled to be considered for regularization. However, no provision has been shown under which they can claim regularization. There is no such concept that merely if an employee has worked for 240 days in a year he would be entitled for regularization. Time and again the Apex Court in catena of decisions has clearly considered this aspect that regularization/regular appointment has nothing to do with the factum that a workman has worked for 240 days in a year.
4. In Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Anr. JT 2009 (9) SC 396 the Court observed:
"Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized."
5. In Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. V. Venkatesan AIR 2010 SC 206 the Court Said:
"A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily-wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calendar year."
6. This Court also in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.28215 of 1992 (Chhattrapal & Ors. Vs. The Vice-Chairman, Bareilly & Anr.) referred to various authorities of the Apex Court observing as under:
"...Mere working for 240 days in a year has nothing to do with the regularisation, unless it is directed and provided under the Rules. In the case of Nagar Mahapalika Vs. State of U.P. AIR 2006, SC 2113, the Apex Court observed that continuance of an employee for a period of 240 days in a year or non-compliance of the provisions of Section 6 (N) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act would have different results and consequences but would not result automatically in relief of treating such employees entitled for regularisation. The concept of regularisation is totally different and distinct than the effect of working of an employee for 240 days in a year continuously and requirement or compliance of Section 6(N) of the Act in case of retrenchment. The Court also categorically held that the appointment made without complying the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and of other statutory provisions pertaining to recruitment is illegal and cannot be regularised. In S. Narayana Vs. M. Ahmedulla Khan & others, AIR 2006 SC 2224 ; National Fertilizers Limited and others Vs. Somvir Singh , AIR 2006 SC 2319; State of Gujarat & anor Vs. Karshan Bhai K. Rabri & ors 2006 (6) SCC 21; Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees Union Vs. Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd., & others, JT 2006 (7) SC 151; R.S. Garg Vs. State of U.P. & others, AIR 2006 SC 2912; Principal, Meharchand Polytechnic, Jalandhar Vs. Anu Lamba & others , AIR 2006 SC 3074; State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Yogesh Chandra Dubey, 2006 (4) MLJ 932, (SC); and State of Bihar Vs. Amrendra Kumar Misra, 2006 (2) UJSC 1346, the same view has been reiterated. This view has also been reiterated in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Vs. Dan Bahadur Singh and others 2007 (6) SCC 207 and recently Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and others Vs. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal and another, (2009) 3 SCC 35. Following the above decision of the Apex Court a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1290 of 2006 (Anup Bihari Lal Srivastava Vs. Pradeep Johari & others) decided on 6.11.2006 has also taken the same view. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show that there was statutory provisions or service rules under which they were entitled for regularization having worked merely for about two years as daily wagers. In the circumstances, the relief sought by the petitioners can not be granted. Even otherwise, daily wager has no right to hold the post. In absence of any statutory right to hold the post, no relief of regularization can be granted."
7. The concept of completion of 240 days is different. The petitioner also relied on Government Order dated 8th January, 1992 but therefrom it appear that a daily wage who have completed 3 years of service and working for 240 days and more in each year may not be terminated and be allowed to continue as the matter of regular appointment is under consideration. But thereby nothing has been placed on record to show that any provision was made for making regular appointment/regularization of such employees. Recruitment of Class III and IV posted in Nagar Palika Parishad is governed by statutory provisions framed under Nagar Palika Adhiniyam and any deviation thereto would be permissible only by means of statutory provision and not otherwise.
8. The writ petition therefore lacks merit. Dismissed.
9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 31.5.2011 KA