IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14991 of 2009 Ramadhar Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 3. 18.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.2009 by which his claim to be considered for regularisation has been rejected by the committee holding that he did not fulfill conditions of eligibility for regularisation laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that his 1 Acre lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and compensation paid. There was a promise for employment also, instead of which the petitioner got a daily wage seasonal appointment and which has not been regularised despite the promise. The petitioner came to this Court earlier in CWJC No. 14434 of 2005 and without proper appreciation of the guidelines in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) the committee has rejected his claim for regularisation. The respondents deny that the petitioner fulfills the requirements for regularisation as laid down in the case of Uma Devi (Supra). On the previous occasion the matter was adjourned for the petitioner to file necessary affidavit in support of the submission in Para 24 of the writ application that there was any policy under which he was assured for a permanent job in addition to the compensation 2 for acquisition of his lands. He was also required to disclose details of the compensation paid to him etc. No such affidavit has been filed. If the lands of the petitioner were acquired he had a statutory right to receive the compensation only. There was no statutory right under the Land Acquisition Act to employment additionally. The petitioner does not raise any grievance with regard to the compensation. No policy decision has been brought on record that he was to be provided an employment also in addition to the compensation paid. There is no legal right in the petitioner to demand employment in addition to compensation. No mandamus for the same can therefore be issued. Considering such claim it was held in (2010) 10 SCC 43 (Amarjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab):- “48. It is also not in dispute that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act invoked by the State for the acquisition under challenge provide for payment of compensation equivalent to the market value of the property as on the date of the preliminary notification apart from other benefits like solatium for the compulsory nature of the acquisition, additional compensation and interest, etc. The sum total of all these amounts undoubtedly constitutes a reasonable compensation for the land acquired from the expropriated owners. Neither Article 300-A of the Constitution nor the Land Acquisition Act make any measures for rehabilitation of the expropriated owners a condition precedent for compulsory acquisition of land. In the absence of any such obligation arising either under Article 300-A or under any other statutory provision, rehabilitation of the owners cannot be treated as an essential requirement for a valid acquisition of property.” “49. ……he decisions of this Court in New Reviera Coop. Housing Society v. Land Acquisition Officer and Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. have repelled the contention that rehabilitation of the property owners is a part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution so as to render any compulsory acquisition for public purpose bad for want of any such measures.” 3 On the own showing of the petitioner he was engaged on seasonal basis. Seasonal employees do not have any status of permanency and their engagement is restricted to the need of the employer as and when it may arise. In Uma Devi (Supra) itself, it was observed at Para 47 that a person engaged in temporary, casual or contractual nature is well aware of the precarious nature of the employment. No question of legitimate expectation therefore arises. The State does not hold out any promise while engaging these persons to continue him or make him permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise also. In Para 48 it has further been noticed that those engaged in such capacity formed a class by themselves and no claim could be founded to be treated at par with regularly recruited candidates or those made permanent in employment. There was no fundamental right in such persons appointed on temporary, casual or contractual basis to claim employment since they do not hold a post. Again in Para 49 it was observed that merely because a person may have worked in the aforesaid capacity for some length of time, it would not vest a claim to perpetuate illegality. The petitioner having been appointed on seasonal basis, was far more precarious than a daily wager or contractual appointee. It is therefore patently obvious from the discussions in the aforesaid paragraphs that persons on daily wage, temporary or contractual appointment, seasonal appointment falling in the same category, do not come within the conditions provided in para 53 of the judgment for regularisation as a one time measure for having worked for ten years. Regularisation connotes a person in service against a vacant post but where there were procedural infirmities. If there was any doubt on this interpretation on Uma Devi 4 it stands clarified in (2010) 3 SCC 115 and (2010) 4 SCC 179 that persons like the petitioner are not entitled to any benefits under the judgment of Uma Devi (Supra). The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)