KAMAL KUMAR THEENG AND ETC., Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions involve a common question of law, and, therefore, the learned counsel for the parties has argued only in one ease, that is, in Writ Petition No. 17/93. Therefore, all these cases are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) To appreciate facts, it is necessary only to mention the facts of case No. 17 of 1993. The petitioner in that case was appointed as compounder provisionally vide office order No. 746/M dated 11-7-1979 (annexurc-P4). By another letter No. 1436/M dated 11-10-79 (annexure-P5) he was appointed temporarily on ad hoc basis with effect from 12-7-79 till 31-12-1979 subject to regularisation of his temporary appointment on receipt of satisfactory police verification report. Vide office order dated 30-1-80 (annexure-P6) is temporary service was extended for three months w.e.f. 1 -1-80 to 31 -3-80. By office order dated 27-8-80 (annexure-P7) he was appointed on contract basis for an initial period of 2 years w.e.f. 12-7-79 to 11-7-81. Vide office order dated 26 11-81 (annexure-P8) his contract service was extended for a period of two years w.e.f. 12-7-81. Vide office orders dated 6-2-84 and 31-7-1985 (annexurc-P9 and P10) his services were extended from 13-7-83 to 12-7-87. Vide office order dated 6-6-88 (annexure-P 11) his period of service from 13-7-87 to 15-7-87 was treated as ad hoc appointment. By office order dated 6-6-88 (annexure-P 12) he was appointed on contract basis for one year from 16-7-87 to 15-7-88. By order dated 13-3-89 (anncxure-P13) his services from 16-7-88 to 18-7-88 were treated as ad hoc. By orderdated 13-3-89 (annexure-P 14) he was appointed on contract for one year from 19-7-88 to 18-7-89(AN). Vide office order dated 19-8-92 (annexure-P15) he was relieved from service with effect from the afternoon of 31-8-1992. Vide office order dated 28-9-82 (annexure-P 17) he was appointed from 21-9-92 to 20-9-93 on contract. On 20-9-93 he was relieved from service. Thereafter, he made a representation for regularisation of his service; but to no effect.

(3.) The petitioner has alleged that he was appointed initially as a regular employee and the Government did not deal with him properly in converting his services on contract basis and that he did not sign any agreement of contract at any time except on the last occasion when he was given contract employment vide office order dated 28-9-92 (annexure-P.17). He has further alleged that he was not given regular employment because he was not considered as a local but many others who had served the Government in various departments on contract basis were given regular employment. He has further alleged that Rule 4 of the Establishment Rules 1974 did not have any application to his case in as much as the purpose of regularising his services was not to replace him as per the second proviso of Rule 4 (4).