Vineet Saran - (1.) -The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner was initially engaged on 5.2.1996 to work on daily wage basis as a Computer Operator in the office of Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur. The petitioner continued to work on such post. After completion of one year period, the petitioner made a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur for regularizing him in service as a Computer Operator. On 17.1.1997 the Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur recommended to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Karmik), Police Headquarters to regularize the petitioner in service, as his work and conduct was very satisfactory. In 1997 the Principal Secretary, Home, recommended for creation of post of Computer Operator. However, even though no post was created, the petitioner continued to work on daily wage basis as Computer Operator and he is still continuing to work as such. Over the last several years, he has been regularly issued letters of appreciation by the police officials of the district. Since the petitioner was still not considered for being regularized in service, he has filed this writ petition with the prayer for a direction to the respondents to regularize him in service as Computer Operator in the Police Department and pay him regular salary month by month.
(2.) I have heard Sri A. K. Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being heard and finally disposed of at this stage. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1996, by order of the Governor of U. P., computers were provided at all the district headquarters of the Police Department and consequently, when a computer was installed in the office of Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur, the petitioner was engaged to work as Computer Operator on daily wage basis, even when no such post of Computer Operator had been sanctioned. From 1996 till date, the petitioner has been continuously working, though without there being any sanctioned post, and to the full satisfaction of the respondents, who have throughout appreciated the work and conduct of the petitioner. Even though recommendations had been made from to time to time for the past over a decade for sanctioning the post of Computer Operator and for regularizing the petitioner in service, but till date no such post has been sanctioned. Recently the post of Computer Operators have been sanctioned in the district headquarters of N.O.I.D.A. and Lucknow but not in District Ghazipur but still, since the work is available, the petitioner is continuing to work on daily wage basis. Learned standing counsel states that the prayer made in this writ petition cannot be allowed as till date no post of Computer Operator has been sanctioned in the district and thus the question of regularization of the petitioner does not arise.
(3.) IT is surprising that the State is taking work of Computer Operator from the petitioner for the last more than a decade and the officials, under whom he has been working, have been regularly issuing letters of appreciation to the petitioner and also recommending for sanction of post of Computer Operator in the district, but the same has not been done till date. Normally this Court does not appreciate or allow back-door entry by way of regularization of daily wage workers who have not been engaged initially through any selection process, but the facts of the present case are quite unusual and as such normal rule would not be applicable in this case. While applying any rule, the Courts have to do so in the facts and circumstances of each individual case. The facts of this case reveal that the work for a Computer Operator has been there in the office of Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur for the last over a decade. The petitioner has been working on such post on daily wage basis continuously, without any break, which is not denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. The work and conduct of the petitioner has been to the total satisfaction of the officers, inasmuch as in the past decade several officers came and went, but all appreciated his work. IT is true that in a normal case, the principle of legitimate expectation would not be applicable in the case of a daily wage worker as he knows that he has come through back door and cannot expect regularization in service except in accordance with law. But in the peculiar facts of this case, such normal rule will not apply. The distinction is because when work was needed to be done, and even though there was no sanctioned post, the services of the petitioner had been utilized and are still being utilized. In such circumstances, the petitioner would have a legitimate expectation of being regularized in service when the post is sanctioned, specially when he has been working for over a decade. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 (5) AWC 5325 (SC), the Apex Court has observed as under : "............In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the Courts or of Tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed......." ;