Sunil Kumar Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation and anr.

Sunil Kumar vs Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation and anr.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Delhi Decided Jan 20, 2006

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/713971

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/713971
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Markandeya Katju, C.J. and; Madan B. Lokur, J.
Decided On: Jan 20, 2006
Case Number: LPA No. 218/2000
Subject: Service
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution of India, 1950Articles 16 & 226 - Termination of service of temporary employee--Petitioner engaged on purely ad hoe basis--Appointment made for short interval--No regular vacancy existing--Held that the Writ Petition rightly rejected. - - 7. It is well settled that a temporary employee has no righ...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sunil Kumar

Advocate G.D.Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Alok Singh, Adv

Respondent

Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation and anr.

Advocate Monika Sharma, Adv.

Legal References

Cases Referred: In Delhi Tepedic Unmoolan Samiti v. Babita Rani and Ors.
Reported In: 129(2006)DLT605; 2006(87)DRJ244; (2006)IIILLJ67Del; 2007(1)SLJ446(Delhi)

Excerpt

constitution of india, 1950articles 16 & 226 - termination of service of temporary employee--petitioner engaged on purely ad hoe basis--appointment made for short interval--no regular vacancy existing--held that the writ petition rightly rejected. - - 7. it is well settled that a temporary employee has no right to the post vide state of uttar pradesh and anr......the government and the area was taken outside the jurisdiction of the corporation for mining activities and the said area has been earmarked for wildlife sanctuary, which is a different department of delhi administration. there is no denial of the fact that bhatti mining operations/activities of respondent no. 1 came to be banned/barred by the government, leading to the termination of the services of the petitioner vide impugned order (annexure-e). the petitioners completing three years as temporary employees by itself will not clinch the issue. it need hardly be said that the regularization of an adhoc/temporary employee has to be against the existing regular vacancies. when there is complete ban imposed by the government against the bhatti mining operations by respondent no. 1, there will be no question of filing up any regular vacancy because respondent no. 1 could not have filled up any regular vacancy. the only right of the petitioners subject to other things would be to be considered for regularization. in the instant case, the question of regularization otherwise also would not arise since the bhatti mines operations by respondent no. 1 have been completely banned/barred by the government and the project came to be closed by respondent no. 1, culminating into the termination of the services of the petitioners. it need hardly be said that a non-existing concern (respondent no. 1) can not be directed to create a permanent/regular post and absorb the petitioners. thus, there is no question of any regular vacancy existing much less filling up of the same by respondent no. 1.6. we fully agree with the aforesaid reasoning of the learned single judge.7. it is well settled that a temporary employee has no right to the post vide state of uttar pradesh and anr. v. kaushal kishore shukla : [1991]1scr29 . hence, the petitioner/appellant has no right to be regularized.8. in delhi tepedic unmoolan samiti v. babita rani and ors. lpa 2554/2005, decided on 16.1.2006 a.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

The competent authority is pleased to terminate the services of the following employees who were engaged on purely adhoc basis with immediate effect. They accordingly stand realized in the afternoon today:-

Serial No. Name Designation1. Shri Sri Ram Mann AC-III2. Mrs.Madhuri AC-III3. Shri Sunil Kumar Asstt. Store Keeper4. Shri Brij Kishore Tiwari Dresser5. Shri Sumer Singh Roneo Operator6. Shri Shiv Saran Sharma Dak Messenger7. Shri B.S.Gyrang Security GuardSd/-(S.A.Ahmed)Asstt. Manager (P)ALL CONERNED.COPY TO:1.Deputy Manager (Accounts), DSMDC, New Delhi with the request that their salary may be released after receipt of No dues certificate from personal cell.

2. Officer in charge concerned3. Sr.P.A. to GM (P&A;)4. Sr.P.A. to CM (T&P;)5. Personal file (s)Sd/- (R.D.Upadhyay)True Copy COPY TO:1.Deputy Manager (Accounts), DSMDC, New Delhi with the request that their salary may be released after receipt of No dues certificate from personal cell.2. Officer in charge concerned3. Sr.P.A. to GM (P&A;)4. Sr.P.A. to CM (T&P;)5. Personal file (s)Sd/- (R.D.Upadhyay)True Copy

4. A perusal of the order dated 30.6.1993 shows that petitioner/appellant was engaged on purely adhoc basis.

5. Paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment states :-

It may be noticed that the Rules of respondent No. 1 at the same time do not provide that after completion of temporary service of three years the employee would automatically become regular employee or that he would be entitled to regularization of his service. Respondent No. 1 in counter-affidavit, has specifically stated that the petitioners were appointed in 1989 in view of the urgency and to tie up the situation, as it existed then, on adhoc/temporary basis; that these temporary/adhoc appointments were extended from time to time for short intervals; that the respondent-Corporation's activities have been curtailed by the Government to a very large extent and in the end of 1992 the activities of the respondent-Corporation in Bhatti Mines were completely barred/banned by the Government and the area was taken outside the jurisdiction of the Corporation for mining activities and the said area has been earmarked for Wildlife Sanctuary, which is a different department of Delhi Administration. There is no denial of the fact that Bhatti Mining operations/activities of respondent No. 1 came to be banned/barred by the Government, leading to the termination of the services of the petitioner vide impugned order (Annexure-E). The petitioners completing three years as temporary employees by itself will not clinch the issue. It need hardly be said that the regularization of an adhoc/temporary employee has to be against the existing regular vacancies. When there is complete ban imposed by the Government against the Bhatti Mining operations by respondent No. 1, there will be no question of filing up any regular vacancy because respondent No. 1 could not have filled up any regular vacancy. The only right of the petitioners subject to other things would be to be considered for regularization. In the instant case, the question of regularization otherwise also would not arise since the Bhatti Mines operations by respondent No. 1 have been completely banned/barred by the Government and the project came to be closed by respondent No. 1, culminating into the termination of the services of the petitioners. It need hardly be said that a non-existing concern (respondent No. 1) can not be directed to create a permanent/regular post and absorb the petitioners. Thus, there is no question of any regular vacancy existing much less filling up of the same by respondent No. 1.

6. We fully agree with the aforesaid reasoning of the learned Single Judge.

7. It is well settled that a temporary employee has no right to the post vide State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla : [1991]1SCR29 . Hence, the petitioner/appellant has no right to be regularized.

8. In Delhi Tepedic Unmoolan Samiti v. Babita Rani and Ors. LPA 2554/2005, decided on 16.1.2006 a Division Bench of this Court has held that it is for the concerned authority to consider whether an employee should be regularized or not. The court cannot give any direction for regularization. The entire case law has been considered in the aforesaid decision and the same may be seen.

9. Following the aforesaid decision this appeal is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2006 Same Parties Sunil Kumar vs Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation an... Same Subject Service Same Judge Markandeya Katju, C.J. and; Madan B. Lokur, J.

Service