IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 10490 of 1989 Date of Decision: March 31, 2009 Rajinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 31.7.1989 (P-1) passed by the Executive Engineer, Panchayati Raj Division, Patiala, terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that contingency funds of Construction and Development of Streets under the Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme Scheme and National Rural Employment Programme Scheme, were exhausted and his services were no longer required. A further prayer has also been made to reinstate the petitioner and to regularize his services from the date of his initial appointment and to pay arrears of salary and other consequential benefits at the rates equivalent to the pay scales of regularly employed workman. The petitioner has claimed that he was appointed as CWP No. 10490 of 1989 Work Supervisor in the office of Panchayati Raj Public Works Sub Division, Jagraon with effect from 2.8.1982 and worked as such till 31.10.1983. Thereafter, he was shifted to Panchayati Raj Public Works Division, Patiala, when his services were terminated vide order dated 31.7.1989 (P-1). It has also been asserted that his appointment was made for 2/3 months at a time and each time a break of 1/2 days was effected before issuing fresh appointment letter, which amounted to unfair trade practice. In para 4 of the petition, the petitioner has claimed that he is a workman and respondent is an Industry within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, a preliminary objection has been raised that since the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, the instant petition is not maintainable. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner was appointed as Work Supervisor on work charged basis against contingency payment on fixed days period. The appointment was given on the basis of sanctions of contingency of funds under the Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme Scheme and National Rural Employment Programme Scheme and the last sanction was upto 31.7.1989. Thereafter, the aforementioned schemes were converted into Jawahar Rozgar Yojna Scheme and all the funds have been transferred to that Scheme (R-1 & R-2). It has been, thus, claimed that the services of the petitioner has rightly been terminated because there was no regular/ad hoc/temporary work. Having heard learned State counsel and perusing the paper book with her able assistance, I am of the considered view that 2 CWP No. 10490 of 1989 there is no merit in the instant petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is well settled principle of law that daily wager appointed temporarily for transitory work on a work charge basis could not be treated at par with regular employees. They cannot seek continuation or regularization of their services. In that regard reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein it has been held that absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees dehors the rules and constitutional scheme of public employment cannot be granted by the Courts. Even if the contract labourers or casual workers or ad hoc employees have worked for a long period they cannot be regularized dehors the rules for selection. Moreover, while admitting the instant petition, vide order dated 18.8.1989 no interim order was passed by the Division Bench in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) March 31, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3