Sudhir Narain - (1.) THE petitioner has sought writ of mandamus commanding the Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Fatehgarh, district Farrukhabad, respondent No. 3, to take the petitioner back in service and appoint him permanently on the sanctioned post of Gardener.
(2.) THE version of the petition is that he was working since 1983 as Gardener on daily wages in Cantonment Board, Fatehgarh, district Farrukhabad. His services were terminated orally in the month of May, 1991. THE Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, respondent No. 3, had sent a letter in the year 1990 to the District Defence Estate Central Command, Lucknow Cantt. for sanction of the post of Gardener in the name of the petitioner. THE post was sanctioned but respondent No. 3 did not make the petitioner permanent on the sanctioned post of Gardener and when the petitioner repeated the request, his services were terminated orally in the year 1991. THE petitioner has challenged the action of respondent No. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having worked during the period 1983 to 1991 was entitled for regularisation in service. Respondent No. 3 acted illegally and instead of regularising his service, he terminated the services of the petitioner. A daily wager is not entitled to regularisation in service as a matter of right. It depends upon various factors, namely, availability of post, the conduct of the employee, his qualification and suitability. In Zakir Hussain v. Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U. P. Lucknow and others, (1993) 1 UPLBEC 15, it was held that a person who was appointed on daily wages or on ad hoc basis does not have any right to the post and his service can be terminated at any time. He cannot claim regularisation of his services as a matter of right merely because he has worked for two or three years, or has completed 240 days In service. For regularisation, there must be both post and the need for retention of the employee according to the requirement of work. That apart, he must be qualified and the work and conduct of such employee must also be satisfactory. In Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd. and another v. Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers 'Marketing Federation Employees' Union and another, AIR 1994 SC 1046, it was held that seasonal employees putting more than 240 days service are not entitled for regularisation merely on that ground.
(3.) IN Madhyamlk Shiksha Parishad, U. P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra, 1994 ALJ 389, the Supreme Court held that the person working under Education Board on ad hoc assignment has no right of regularisation merely because he has completed" 240 days of work till duly sanctioned post is created. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Pramod Kumar Shahi and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1994 SC 42, wherein certain employees who were originally working as Managers of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society were taken on deputation as Assistant Cashiers by the Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank. Some of them were absorbed in the service of Co-operative Bank but the services of some of them were dispensed with. The Supreme Court held that as the posts were vacant and the employees were qualified and working for many years, they were entitled to be absorbed in the services of Co-operative Bank. It was a case where employees were working on deputation and claimed absorption and on the facts of that case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court found that they were entitled for absorption in the service of the Bank.;