C.W.P. No.8311 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.8311 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 28, 2009 Baldev Singh Chaudhary and others .....PETITIONERS Versus Bhakra Beas Management Board and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Rajesh K. Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 10.11.2006 (Annexure P5), whereby the claim of the petitioners for permanent absorption on the posts of Chargemen Grade-II (Wireless Operators), has been rejected with the observation that as and when regular vacancies of Chargemen Grade-II (Wireless Operators) were circulated/advertised by the respondent-Board, the petitioners may compete with the others; and further for quashing advertisement No.1 of 2008 (Annexure P7) with regard to the category at Sr.No.10, whereby the applications were invited for recruitment to the post of Chargeman Grade-II (Wireless Operator). The petitioners, who are ex-servicemen, were appointed on contract basis on the posts of Chargemen Grade-II (Wireless Operators) for 89 days. As per their appointment letters, after completion of the contract C.W.P. No.8311 of 2009 -2- period, their services were automatically considered to be dispensed with without any notice. It is the case of the petitioners that since 2000 to 2008, every year the petitioners were being appointed on contract basis for 2/3 months during the rainy season. In the year 2006, petitioners No.1 and 2 filed CWP No.2162 of 2006 for issuing direction to the respondents to consider their claim for permanent absorption on the posts of Chargemen Grade-II (Wireless Operators) keeping in view their experience as seasonal workers. The said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 14.2.2006 with liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondents by filing a representation, and in case any such representation was made, the respondents were directed to consider and decide the same within a period of two months. Vide order dated 10.11.2006, which has been impugned in the present writ petition, the claim of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis for a short duration of rainy season, therefore, they could not be absorbed against the regular posts as the selection against regular post is made by the Centralised Staff Selection Committee of BBMB after advertising the posts. Now after more than two years of the passing of the said order, the instant petition has been filed. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are fulfilling all the requisite qualifications for the post of Chargeman Grade-II (Wireless Operator) and they are having the experience for the said post. It has been further argued that the respondents have been calling the petitioners for a short duration during the rainy season, therefore, they should be treated as seasonal employees, who have a claim for permanent absorption on the post in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State C.W.P. No.8311 of 2009 -3- of U.P. and others v. Sheo Nandan and others, 1995(4) RSJ 765. After hearing the counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioners. Undisputedly, the petitioners were given appointment for a short duration of 89 days during the rainy season in a particular year on contract basis. Merely because they have worked for 89 days in a year on contract basis, they will not be entitled to be absorbed against the regular posts. The petitioners are only entitled for some benefits towards experience when they will also appear against the advertisement issued for appointment on regular basis. The petitioners have not worked on seasonal basis. Actually, there is no seasonal post in the respondent department. The petitioners were engaged on contract basis during the rainy season when the additional hands were required. Such kind of appointment cannot be termed as permanent seasonal appointment. Therefore, such employees have no legal right to be absorbed against the regular posts which, according to the rules of the respondents, are to be filled up after issuing advertisement by the Centralised Staff Selection Committee of BBMB. The judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioners is not applicable in the facts of the case. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. May 28, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE