R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has challenged his removal from service on the basis of office order dated 25.1.1997 (Annexure 5).
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he worked since July, 1987 on hand receipts and he was regularised as daily wager with effect from 1.7.1987 on 7.1.1988 by the Executive Engineer (respondent No. 6) vide Annexure 2.However, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy me as to under what provision, a person working on daily wages could be regularised with retrospective effect. 3) JCR 9 (Jhr) (FB) and, accordingly, similar order may be passed in this case also. He referred to paragraph 17 of the said judgment which reads as follows: I, therefore, hold that: The work -charged employees, who have completed more than five years of continuous service against one post in the work -charged establishment and otherwise eligible, have a right of consideration of their cases for taking over their services in the permanent (regular) establishment, irrespective of their dates of appointment. But the work -charged employees, working on daily wages, not holding any post, are not so entitled.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the State submitted that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors. , petitioner cannot be made permanent overlooking the financial implications and requirement of work etc. She further submitted that the Executive Engineer doubted the petitioners purported appointment in the work charge establishment on 22.6.1989 vide Annexure 4 and, therefore, he issued letter dated 25.1.1997 (Annexure 5). She further submitted that, in any event, the petitioner having allegedly been posted after 1.1.1988 is not entitled to the relief prayed in terms of Government decision.;