HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 594 (S/S) of 2008 Old No.9302 of 1996 Tanveer Haider S/o Sri Ghani Haider R/o Mohalla Uncha Town Sainthal District Bareilly at Present posted in Officer of Estate Managing Officer U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parisha, Rudrapur at present R/o B/890 District Udham Singh Nagar ……….Petitioner. Versus Deputy Housing Commissioner and others ….Respondents. Mr. C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Mehta, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for seeking regularization in the clerical grade on the post of Assistant Grade III as he had been working in the said capacity as Daily Wager w.e.f. 20/11/1992 (annexure-2 to the writ petition). 2. It is called in the petition that the petitioner was appointed Chowkidar on muster roll in the year 1984. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to discharged the work of Clerk on daily wagers w.e.f. 20/11/1994. He was appointed as daily wager and he represented before the competent authority to enhance his wages or to appoint him on the clerical post Class III. When representation of the petitioner was not allowed, , the petitioner has filed this petition before this Court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. It is not disputed that that the petitioner was initially appointed as daily wager work charge employee on 23/05/1984. It is also not disputed that he was allowed to discharge the function of Clerical job on daily wages vide annexure-2 to the writ petition. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has not been appointed by due process of law which is provided under the rules. The petitioner was appointed on daily wages in Class-IV post as well as in the class-III post. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wager in establishment as Class III. As such, the petitioner is a daily wage employee. It is not disputed that the services of the petitioner was on the basis of daily wages. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi 2006 AIR SCW p/1991 that if a person is appointed on a contractual basis, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it was an engagement on daily wages or causal basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a daily wager cannot claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It was further held that merely because a temporary employee or a daily wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. While accepting the employment, the person concerned knows the nature of his employment it has further been held by he Hon’ble Apex Court in Umadevi (Supra) that the adhoc/daily wage employee has no legal right over any of the post to get them regularized and the court has no role to pay in these cases. The Court cannot issue writ of mandamus to regularize the employee. As such, the employee has not legal right to claim regularization. It has been held in Umadevi (Supra) that daily wager or adhoc employee who has been appointed from the back door, depriving the procedure adopted have to go from the back door. They have to take the recourse of the same door for their services. In such a situation, they cannot claim parity with the other employees who have been directly recruited under the scheme of the Constriction as provided under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the rule made thereunder. In the instant case, the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment of Umadevi (Supra). I do not find that the petitioner has any legal enforceable right to get himself regularized in the service. The petitioner was appointed on daily wages Class-III post and the remuneration stated in the appointment letter has been paid to him. The petitioner cannot claim parity with the other employees regularly appointed by the competent officers under the constitutional schemes. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to get the salary as claimed in the petition as well as reliefs sought in this petition. 5. In view of above, the petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 24th August, 2009 Shiv