IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5936/2010. Smt.Kusum George. VERSUS Union of India and Others. 26.04.2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI Mr.C.B.Sharma, for the petitioner. *****
By this writ petition a challenge is made to the judgment dated 07.08.2009 whereby Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench dismissed Original Application preferred by the petitioner.
The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed on daily wages basis on 01.04.1982. Subsequent to her appointment, respondents conducted regular selections in the year 1985. The petitioner appeared in the selection and was finally appointed in regular pay-scale to the post of Laboratory Technician w.e.f. 06.04.1989.
The grievance of the petitioner is that her service period w.e.f. 01.04.1982 till 05.04.1989 has not been treated as regular for the purpose of pensionary benefit and the benefit of ACP. Learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Application holding that the intervening period from the year 1982 to 1989 cannot be treated as regular for any purpose.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since beginning, the petitioner was working against a vacant post and drawing regular pay-scale, thus, for all purposes she was discharging services to the post of Laboratory Technician on regular basis. In view of the aforesaid, she is entitled to seek the benefit of regular appointment w.e.f. 01.04.1982 itself.
We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgment.
Perusal of the judgment shows that the learned Tribunal has taken note of the nature of appointment made in the year 1982 and the condition therein. At the time of appointment, it was made clear to the petitioner that her engagement is purely on temporary/adhoc basis and the same will not confer any right of regularization. The petitioner had accepted the condition and joined the services in the year 1982 and now the petitioner is claiming benefit contrary to the above condition. The learned Tribunal has further gone on the legal issue involved in the matter, referring judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and Others Vs. Jagjiwan Ram and Others [(2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 769] and also in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Haryana Veterinary and AHTS Association [2000 SCC (L&S) 1043], came to the conclusion that the adhoc/temporary/contractual service cannot be counted as regular service for the grant of any benefit.
In view of the aforesaid, the claim of the petitioner to treat her service as regular from the year 1982 cannot be accepted. It would not only be contrary to the condition under which the petitioner sought appointment on the daily wages basis in the year 1982 but the benefit of regularization of service cannot be given in piecemeal i.e. for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefit and ACP leaving its effect to the seniority etc. There may be cases where regular selections are made in between and if a candidate is given status of regular appointment from beginning, irrespective of nature of appointment, it may affect the rights of the others.
In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment passed by the Tribunal and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(M.N.BHANDARI),J. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A