Writ petition challenging rejection of representation seeking regular service treatment for daily wage period. Court held no justification for retroactive regularization and found no illegality in revenue authority's rejection order based on specific grounds.
Writ petition dismissed with no consideration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No. 11241 of 2009
7 07.08.2019
Heard Mr. S. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.P. Behera, learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 and 3.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of rejection of his representation communicated to him vide letter dated 07.04.2009 issued by the opposite party-Corporation. He further seeks for direction to the opposite parties to treat his services in regular establishment for the period he rendered as NMR Driver (HMV) from 01.04.1983 to 12.04.1990.
Mr. S. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner states that for filling up vacancies of regular Drivers (Heavy Motor Vehicle), the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, Sambalpur. Pursuant to which, he was selected and appointed as Driver (NMR). Subsequently, he was appointed as Light Vehicle Driver on 12.04.1988 under the work charged establishment and joined in the said post on 12.04.1988. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Driver-B and Driver-A fulfilling the eligibility criteria and being found selected by the Management. But for the period he has discharged his duty, i.e. from 01.04.1983 to 12.04.1990, should be treated as regular and he should be granted all consequential benefits.
Mr. J.P. Behera, learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 and 3 contended that by the time the petitioner was appointed under NMR Establishment on
daily wage basis, without any objection he had accepted the same and consequentially, he discharged his duty. Subsequently, he was brought to the work charged establishment and he joined in the post. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Driver-B and Driver-A and got all the benefits. Thereby the authority has right rejected the representation by assigning reasons. Therefore, this Court should not interfere at this stage.
Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that admittedly pursuant to recommendation made by the District Employment Exchange, Sambalpur, the petitioner by following due procedure was selected as Driver and consequentially, he was engaged under NMR Establishment on daily wage basis with effect from 04.01.1983 and he discharged his duty till 12.04.1988. Thereafter, he was brought to the work charged establishment on 12.04.1988 on being regularized having satisfied all the eligibility criteria and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Driver-B and Driver-A. Therefore, the claim made at this point of time working for regular appointment from 04.01.1983 to 12.04.1988 cannot have justification. More so, in compliance of the judgment dated 28.01.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.15194 of 2008, the representation, which was filed by the petitioner, has been considered by the authority and rejected the same with the following grounds:
1. The District Employment Officer, Sambalpur was requested vide letter No.334 dtd. 21.12.1982 of executive Engineer, PPD No.I of erstwhile OSEB to
sponsor the names of the suitable candidates (copy enclosed as annexure-1) wherein it was clearly mentioned that the candidates may be employed on daily wage basis as per approved scales of daily wages.
2. Accordingly, the District Employment Officer, Sambalpur issued call letter to you for the post of Heavy Vehicle Driver with a direction to attend the interview on 01.01.1983 (copy enclosed as annexure-II)
3. After attending interview and being selected in the interview for the post of Driver, you were engaged under NMR Estt. On daily wage basis as per the terms and conditions intimated to District Employment Officer earlier.
4. Subsequently, you were appointed as Light Vehicle Driver on dtd. 12.04.1988 under work charged establishment and joined in the said post on dtd. 12.04.1988. Thereafter, you have been promoted to the post of Driver-B and Driver-A fulfilling the eligibility criteria and being found selected by the Management.
5. So as alleged by you that you were compelled to work as a Driver (NMR) on selection is not correct and there has been no manipulation debarring you from the post of Heavy Vehicle Driver w.e.f. 04.01.1983.”
In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned passed by the authority rejecting the representation of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is dismissed.
Alok
…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the claim for treatment of services as regular from 04.01.1983 has justification.
Whether the order rejecting the representation passed by the authority contains any illegality or irregularity.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.(C) No.15194 of 2008Referred¶8
W.P.(C) No.15194 of 2008, Judgment dated 28.01.2009
Petitioner
Corporation
B. R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
