Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, following prayer has been made by the petitioner, which reads as under: - - "A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the record of the case may kindly be called for; B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the communication dated 11.11.2008 (Annexure -7) may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside. C. By an appropriate order or direction, the respondents may be kindly directed to extend benefit of selection Grades on completion of 9 and 18 years & 27 years of service to the petitioner. D. In the alternative, it is prayed that by any appropriate order writ or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer w.e.f. 01.08.1977 and allow him selection grade on completion of 9, 18, & 27 years of services."
(2.) AS per facts, the petitioner was initially appointed on ad -hoc basis on the post of Fieldman (Agriculture)/Fieldman Assistant in the pay -scale of Rs. 110 -230 vide order dated 28.11.1975. Just after two years of service on the said post, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer on ad -hoc basis for three months vide order dated 1.8.1977. As per facts of the case, till his retirement on 31.10.2009, the petitioner was allowed to work on ad -hoc basis without regularizing his services upon initial post. In view of the fact that no employee can be granted selection scale after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service without regular appointment, the claim of the petitioner for the purpose of granting selection scale at this stage is not sustainable in the eye of law in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, reported in : AIR 2010 SC p.157. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that no employee can be compelled to work on ad -hoc basis in the whole tenure of service without regularizing service because it is the duty of the employer to consider the case of the ad -hoc employee for the purpose of regularization, which has not been done in this case and due to inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner was retired from service while working on ad -hoc basis.
(3.) IN the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, reported in : 2006 (4) SCC p.1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave certain directions in para 53 of the judgment to consider the case of regularization of those employees who were appointed on ad -hoc basis and remain in service without intervention of the Court for more than 10 years of service. In the year 2006, petitioner was in service, therefore, respondents were under obligation to consider the case of petitioner for regularization of his service.;