MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Vs. GOBIND RAM
LAWS(DLH)-1983-3-20
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on March 03,1983

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Appellant
VERSUS
GOBIND RAM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAMA NAND SINGH V. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.B.Wad - (1.)This is a second appeal against the order of Shri J.D. Kapoor, Addl. District Judge, Delhi dated 19th September, 1981. Through the said appellate order the Additional District Judge held that the respondent should be deemed to have been confirmed automatically in the post of lineman/wireman after he has completed one year service. The learned Judge further held that the Deputy Commissioner was not competent to remove the respondent and the proper authority was the Commissioner of the Corporation.
(2.)The respondent was appointed as a lineman/wireman in the temporary post on 9-12-1961. His services were terminated under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rule 1949 by the Deputy Commissioner Shri N.N. Tandon, on 1-9-1965. The respondent filed a suit against his termination. The Trial Court held that the termination was valid. As stated above the First Appellate Court upset that order and passed the impugned order.
(3.)The first question is whether the respondent became a quasi permanent employee of the Corporation. It is well settled in law that the status of quasi permanency or permanency (confirmation) should be expressly conferred by the employer unless there is an express rule for automatic confirmation. The appointment order of the respondent states :
"The appointment is temporary. He can however, be considered for confirmation after atleast one year's satisfactory service provided a permanent post is available."
The appointment order nowhere states that the respondent would be automatically confirmed after the one year. What it states is that he would be entitled for consideration after one year satisfactory service. There is no substance in the respondent's contention that he had acquired the status of quasi permanent. The First appellate court had definitely erred in law in coming to a conclusion that there was automatic confirmation of the respondent. The position regarding the status of the respondent on the date of the termination of service, therefore, was that he was a temporary employee of the Corporation and his service could be terminated under Rule 5.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.