R.R.K.Trivedi - (1.) IN this writ petition, counter affidavits have been filed by respondent and both the learned counsel have agreed that the writ petition may be decided finally at this stage.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 20th March, 1991 Annexure-1 to the writ petition as Horticulture Inspector by respondeujt Ghaziabad Development Authority on contract basis for a period of one year on a fixed salary of Rs. 1394 and in respect of the gardening work of Indrapuram project. The period of one year expired in March, 1992. However petitioner continued to work on the post till 6th September, 1993 on which date his services were terminated vide order Annexure-5 to the writ petition on the simple ground that the period of contract of the petitioner has come to an end and the services are no more required by respondent. Aggrieved by this order petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and has claimed that the order may be declared illegal and void and to treat the petitioner as Horticulture Inspector and to pay salary including arrears. Resisting the claim of petitioner counter affidavit and two supplementary counter affidavits have been filed. Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit is the application written by petitioner addressed to the Secretary of respondent praying to extend the period of contract which came to an end on 12th March, 1992 and it has been prayed that the petitioner may be given chance to serve. In counter affidavit filed it has been sought to show that the petitioner was allowed to continue on the post in collusion with Garden Superintendent though he could not be continued in view of the specific and clear order of the State Government not to' appoint any body on adhoc, casual or on contract basis until the post is created. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent at length. So fat' as the factual aspect of the case is concerned there is no controversy between the parties to the essential fact that the petitioner was employed on basis of the contract which was for a period of one year and thereafter petitioner was continued till 6th September, 1993. The controversy between the parties is only with regard to the circumstances in which petitioner was continued to work on the post even after expiry of the period of one year stipulated under the contract of service. In my opinion, this controversy is not very material in this case for deciding the writ petition. Honourable Supreme Court in case of Director Institute of Management Development, U. P. v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 2070. has specifically held that where the appointment is purely on ad-hoc basis and is contractual and by flux of time appointment comes to an end the person holding such post can have no right to continue on the post. This is so even if the person is continuing from time to time on ad-hoc basis for more than a year, he cannot claim regularisation in service on the basis that he was appointed on ad-hoc basis for more than a year. The facts of the aforesaid case decided by Hon. Supreme Court are almost identical with the facts of the present case. The application moved by petitioner on 29th May, 1992 further shows that he was continued on the post on basis of same contract and in the circumstances the view expressed by Honourable Supreme Court in aforesaid case is squarely applicable and petitioner cannot claim any benefit on the basis of the fact that he was continuning in service even after expiry of the period of contract.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner however relying on case of State of Haryana v. Pyara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2132 has submitted that as petitioner has worked for more than a year he is entitled for regularisation on the post. Reliance has been placed on the guidelines mentioned in paragraph no. 25 of aforesaid judgment However in my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled on any basis even under the observations made by Honourable Supreme Court in the above judgment. The petitioner has not been able to show that any post of Horticulture Inspector has been created on which petitioner can be appointed or regularised. LEARNED counsel has submitted that as post of Horticulture Inspector is now outside the purview of the Centralised Service Rules the creation of post is not dependant on the State Government and the respondent can itself create the past. Further on basis of the letters Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition addressed by the Garden Superintendent it has been submitted that respondent still requires services of the petitioner, he is entitled to be regularised. In my opinion, since the appointment was ad-hoc contractual, it will not be appropriate to issue any direction to respondent to regularise petitioner in service and the only relief which can be given to petitioner following the judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 2070 is that respondent may be required to consider the continuance of the petitioner on the post sympathetically if his services are really needed. Paragraphs no. 26 and 27 of the aforesaid judgment: are very relevant for the purpose and are being quoted below : "George Eliot Said : "More helpful than all wisdom or counsel is one draught of simple human pity that will hot forsake us". Here is one draught from us. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct that her services may be continued till the end of this calendar year on the same terms as spelt out in the order dated 1-9-90. Of course, it would be open to the appellant to consider the regularisation of her services, should it so desire. In that event, this judgment will not stand in the way of such regularisation. However we make it clear that it is not to be understood that we have directed the regularisation". For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction that petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service till 31st December, 1993 and shall be paid salary on the same terms as spelt out in the order of appointment dated 20th March, 1991, Annexure-1 to the writ petition and during this, period it is expected that respondent shall consider about continuance/regularisation of the service of petitioner with sympathy and kindness considering hard days, in that event this order will not stand in the way of petitioner. However it is made clear that it is not to be understood that this Court has directed the regularisation. This period may also be utilised by petitioner for searching alternative job. There will be no order as to costs.;