- (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred for several reliefs, the main relief being of treating the petitioner's services for 13 years in the respondent Spinning Mill to be regular, and accordingly grant all consequential benefits as an outcome of such regularization. Parity has also been claimed with Medical Officers of the State Medical and Health Services and as an alternative the petitioner has also prayed for granting of voluntary retirement under a scheme or settle a financial package for the petitioner.
(2.) IT is undisputed that the respondent Spinning Mill has faced closure as a result whereof the services of the petitioner were disengaged in 1998. The petitioner after his disengagement has thereafter come up with this writ petition for the reliefs prayed for.
(3.) THE petitioner's appointment appears to be on the strength of a letter copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner dated 26.9.2007. A perusal of the Minutes of the Selection Committee dated 22.4.1985 which have been brought on record indicates the terms and conditions of the appointment of the petitioner in the following words: - "Interview was held on the aforesaid date and the Committee after looking to qualification, suitability and personality found Dr. Srivastava suitable for the above post and decided to pay Rs. 600/ - (Six hundred only) per month remuneration as visiting fee initially for a period of six months from the date of his joining." It is thus clear from the letter of appointment that the petitioner had been appointed on a visiting fee of Rs. 600 per month for six months. It is undisputed that no letter of appointment or terms and conditions of service have further been extended in favour of the petitioner. To the contrary paragraph 4(c) of the counter affidavit reads as under: - 4(c). That it may be clarified that the petitioner was never given regular appointment as a Mill doctor, but he was only a visiting doctor and was being paid Rs. 600/ - as honorarium for his visiting fee. The petitioner has tried to plaint a picture that he was appointed as a regular doctor in the respondent company, which fact is totally incorrect and is denied. He was only a visiting doctor on a part time basis and was being paid the visiting fee. Reference in this connection may also be made to the letter dated 20.9.1990 filed by the petitioner himself as Annexure - 2 to the writ petition, whereby the payment of Rs. 25/ - per visit was raised to Rs. 40/ - per visit. The said letter further shows that the minimum sitting would be two hours per day. This itself demonstrates that the petitioner was not a regular employee of the answering respondent company, but was only a part time visiting doctor and payments were being made to him on per visit basis.;