IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 67 of 2008 (S/B) Shri Shambhu Nath Tiwari ….…… Petitioner. Versus The Union of India and another ………. Respondents Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargawa, Standing Counsel for the Union of India / respondents. Date of Judgment: 18.11.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) Petitioner unsuccessfully approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench to obtain a direction to regularize his services. He, accordingly, approached this Court assailing the findings of the Tribunal. 2. It was the contention of the appellant before the Tribunal that he has been engaged as Computer Operator cum Billing Clerk in the Unit Run Canteen, Raiwala, 237 Transit Camp, Dehradun with effect from 17th November, 2001 and having had worked continuously thereafter, completed the probation period and has, accordingly, acquired entitlement of being regularized. The Tribunal found, as a fact, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on 4th January, 2001, rendered a judgment in Union of India and others Vs. Mohd. Aslam and others, holding that the status of employees in URC must be that of government employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, by and under the said judgment, directed the Union of India to determine the service conditions of the employees in URCs. In terms of the said judgment, the Union of India (Army Headquarters) made the Rules for Regulating the Terms and Conditions of Service of Civilian Employees of Unit Run Canteen Paid Out of Non Public Fund (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules’) on 28th April, 2003. The Tribunal recorded that the respondents are disputing that the petitioner was appointed as a Computer Operator cum Billing Clerk on 17th November, 2001 and served as such thereafter. The 2 Tribunal noted the specific contention of the respondents that there is no record suggesting any engagement of petitioner as Computer Operator cum Billing Clerk from 17th November, 2001 or from any other date subsequent thereto until 1st March, 2005. The Tribunal found, as a fact, that on 1st March, 2005, there was a contract in between the petitioner and the respondents, whereby the petitioner agreed to work on contract for a period of 10 months. The Tribunal found, as a fact, that until before October, 2005, petitioner never asked for regularization. 3. The Tribunal noticed that there was no appointment letter in favour of the petitioner entitling him to work since 17th November, 2001. The Tribunal noticed that even after coming into force of the said Rules on 28th April, 2003, there was no selection of the petitioner for appointment, as has been provided in the said Rules. The Tribunal, accordingly, concluded that a person, who has not been appointed in accordance with the rules, cannot seek regularization of service. 4. In the present writ petition, petitioner has relied upon an experience certificate, which purports to hold out that during the period from 19th September, 2001 to 12th November, 2003, petitioner had worked satisfactorily. Although it was recorded in the said certificate that the petitioner was employed on 17th November, 2001, but it was not indicated in the certificate the status of such employment of the petitioner, i.e., whether he was appointed or he was engaged on contractual basis or on daily wage basis. The fact remains that a contractual employee and a daily wager is outside the purview of employment, as contemplated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment referred to above. 5. Therefore, in the present writ petition, petitioner has failed to bring on record anything from where it can be deciphered that the petitioner was appointed as an employee of the Unit Run Canteen in question, but not as a daily wager or on casual employment or as a contractual employee. 3 6. That being the situation, there is no scope of interference with the judgment and order of the Tribunal. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 18.11.2011 18.11.2011 Amit