WP-5357-2015 (PRAKASH CHANDRA Vs ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT) 25-04-20[SECTION] Parties as before this Court. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition claiming regularization in service. The petitioner himself has enclosed Annexure-P/1, which is the appointment order and the same reflects that the petitioner is a part-time employee. Reply has been filed in the matter by the State with a copy of the judgment delivered in the case of [PRECEDENT] passed in [CASE NUMBER] decided on 21/02/2014. The Honble Apex Court in the aforesaid case in para 6, 7, and 8 has held as under : 6 In [PRECEDENT], this Court dealt with the issue of regularisation of part-time employees and the court refused the relief on the ground that part- timers are free to get themselves engaged elsewhere and they are not restrained from working elsewhere when they are not working for the authority/employer. Being the part-time employees, they are not subject to service rules or other regulations which govern and control the regularly appointed staff of the department. Therefore, the question of giving them equal pay for equal work or considering their case for regularisation would not arise. 7 This Court in [PRECEDENT], has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and laid down well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay relevant in the context of the issues involved therein. The same are as under: 8(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under [SECTION] of the [ACT] will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in [SECTION] and [SECTION] should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised. ii. Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be litigious employment. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily- wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right. (iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates. (iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees. (v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute. (Emphasis added) 8 The present appeals are squarely covered by clauses (ii), (iv) and (v) of the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, the appeals are allowed. However, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case as Shri [ENTITY], learned senior counsel has submitted that the appellant has already implemented the impugned judgments and does not want to disturb the services of the respondents, the services of the
respondents which stood regularised should not be affected.
In light of the aforesaid judgment delivered by the Honble Apex Court, the question of directing the State Government to regularize the petitioner does not arise.
Resultantly, admission is declined. C c as per rules.
([ENTITY]) JUDGE