CWP No. 17507 of 1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17507 of 1991 Date of decision : 03.03.2011 Balwan Singh ...Petitioner versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Ranjit Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Singh, D.A.G., Haryana for respondent No 1. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4 **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) The matrix of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioner was appointed as daily wager worker on 05.02.1979 in the office of Haryana State Electricity Board (for brevity “respondent-Board). The petitioner claimed that since he was performing the duties of a Clerk in the office of S.D.O./Xen of the respondent-Board, so he was entitled to be appointed as lower division clerk (for short “LDC”) from the date his juniors were appointed. He has also pressed into service the plea of discrimination, in this regard. According to the petitioner, that in pursuance of the order dated 08.01.1991 of this Court rendered in C.W.P No. 153 of 1991, he made the representation dated 19.01.1991 (Annexure P8) for regularisation of his service but his claim was negatived by the respondents, vide impugned reply/order (Annexure P9). CWP No. 17507 of 1991 -2- 2. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned reply/order (Annexure P9), invoking the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequences of events, in all, according to the petitioner that as he has worked on the post of LDC, therefore, he is entitled to be appointed as LDC from the date his juniors were appointed. The impugned reply/order (Annexure P9) by means of which his claim of regularisation of service was negatived by the respondents was stated to be illegal and arbitrary. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner sought the quashment of impugned reply/order (Annexure P9), in the manner depicted herein above. 4. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner and filed the written statements, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action, delay and locus standi of the petitioner. The respondents claimed that petitioner was engaged as daily wager, the seniority of daily wager worker is maintained on the circle level and no junior to the petitioner in Jind Circle was ever appointed as LDC. It was claimed that subsequently the petitioner was offered the post of Chowkidar, by way of letter dated 26.07.1991 (Annexure R1) but he himself declined to accept the post, by means of letter (Annexure R2). In all, according to the respondents, that as the petitioner was appointed as a daily wager worker, therefore, he is not entitled to be appointed as LDC as claimed by him. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal 5. Controverting the allegations of the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the writ petitions, the petitioner filed the replication. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record, with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter CWP No. 17507 of 1991 -3- deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition, in this context. 7. What is not disputed here is that petitioner was engaged as daily wager worker and he was never appointed as LDC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has utterly failed to show that how and in what manner, under which provisions of law/Rules, petitioner, who was engaged as daily worker can be appointed as LDC, particularly when the respondents have stoutly denied that no junior person to the petitioner in Jind Circle was ever appointed as LDC 8. As is evident from the record that petitioner was engaged as a daily wager worker and was not appointed on regular basis, in accordance with rules. The rights of the daily wager workers, who were appointed without following the statutory rules and the due procedure, came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. UmaDevi (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 wherein it was held that if an employee was irregularly appointed than he is not entitled either to claim substantive post or regularisation of his service. 9. The ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments mutatis mutandis is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand 10. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge March 03, 2011 G.Arora Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No