- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for the following relief:-- Issuance of an appropriate writ order direction commanding upon the respondents to forthwith regularize the service of the petitioner considering his long service since he is discharging his duty regularly from 1998. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner has been working since, 1998 on daily wages and he has discharged duty to the satisfaction of the respondent-authority however, the claim of the petitioner for regularisation in service has been denied without any justifiable reason.
(3.) Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, S.C.-III, appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that, the petitioner was not appointed on regular basis rather, his service was taken according to the need of the work i.e. on daily wages. In the counter-affidavit it has been disclosed by the respondent No. 5 thus, 7. That the petitioner was engaged on pure temporary basis for the protection of plantation done by the department. When the plants were over grazing height services were terminated. The service of the petitioner was not taken against any permanent post or continuously since 1998 but as per the requirement engaged on daily wage basis. Therefore, the question of regularization of service does not arise. It is the settled principal of law that the daily wage earner cannot claim regularization of service.;