- (1.) THIS special appeal arises out of the judgment dated 21.5.1999 based by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ No. 21287 of 1999 whereby the writ petition of the petitioner has been dismissed, holding that the daily wage employees had no right to the post. It is not disputed by the petitioner appellant that he was appointed as Mandi Sahayak on daily wage basis in pursuance to the order dated 31.7.1996 and was allowed payment of salary in the running pay scale w.e.f. 4.10.1997 but was ceased to work orally on 1.5.1999. The learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out that a bunch of matters involving similar controversy has now finally been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4092 of 2001, State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and others, decided on 6.12.2005 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under : (a) "Ad hoc employees, not being employees within the meaning of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations, a legal relationship between the employer and the employee would not come into being. As no legal relationship of employer and employee comes into being. Evidently, such persons do not derive any status. They afortiori derive no legal right to continue in service, subject, of course, to the compliance of the provisions of any other Act or the Rules conferring certain benefits to them. (b) In the matter of termination, the principles of natural justice would be attracted only when the termination is by way of punitive measure or a stigma is attached and not otherwise. (c) If the employees are workmen within the purview of U.P. Industrial Disputes act, they are protected thereunder, and may claim the benefit under the said Act raising dispute as provided thereunder. (d) Regularization contrary to the rules is not permissible. No temporary or permanent status can be granted to an employee by way of regularization. (e) Regularization cannot be a mode of appointment. (f) The appointments having been made without following the procedure or services of some persons have been regularized in past, cannot be a reason to seek regularization by claiming a similar order from the Court. Past practice is not always the best practice. If illegality has been committed in the past, it is beyond comprehension as to how such illegality can be allowed to perpetrate, Article 14 would have no application in such case."
(2.) IT is, therefore, submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that in view of recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court pertaining to the Mandi Parishad employees itself, the petitioner appellant in the present case, even otherwise, would not be entitled for any relief and the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge needs no interference. The learned Counsel for the appellant could not dispute the aforesaid position. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find that the petitioner appellant in the present case is not entitled for any relief and the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge needs no interference.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the special appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.;