CWP NO. 11580 of 1988 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP NO. 11580 of 1988 DATE OF DECISION: 31.1.2009 Ram Kumar and others ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: None for the petitioner Mr.Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) At the time of filing of this petition, the petitioners were working as daily wagers. They were engaged on different dates as indicated in paragraph 3 of the petition. It is their own case that they are being paid on daily rates, though calculated monthly. The daily rates being received by the petitioners from time to time have also been mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. It is further alleged that the respondents are giving weekly break in service and also rest on Sunday(s). The petitioners have filed this petition claiming their regularization in service and also equal pay/wages with those who are regularly working in the capacity and performing same duties. While admitting this petition on 20.12.1988, termination of the CWP NO. 11580 of 1988 2 petitioners was stayed. There is no reply on behalf of the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are working on daily wage basis. Their engagement was not through any process of selection nor they are working against any sanctioned posts. The petitioners have relied upon Division Bench Judgment of this Court passed in the case of Piara Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and others, 1988 (2) N.L.Reports 663 (681). The issue of regularization has been finally set at rest by a constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1. It may be useful to notice the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard as under:- “45.While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the fact that the person concerned has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain- not at arm's length- since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not CWP NO. 11580 of 1988 3 permissible. If the Court were to void a contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would not mean that some people at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succour to them. After all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The claim acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established, for making regular appointments to available posts in the services of the State. The argument that since one has been working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature of employment when he first CWP NO. 11580 of 1988 4 took it up is, of not (sic) one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.” In view of the clear cut mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding regularization of the casual workers/daily wagers, the petitioners have no right to seek regularization. I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 31.1.2009 MFK