SPA/21/2019 of STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY FOREST GOVT. OF UTTARAKHAND DEHRADUN Vs MANGAL SINGH RANA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Special Appeal No.21 of 2019

State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Forest Govt. of Uttarakhand and Others …………Appellants

Mangal Singh Rana ………Respondent

th Dated: 15May, 2019

Coram: Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral)

1.The application seeking condonation of delay of 132 days is not opposed by Shri D.K. Joshi, learned Counsel for the respondent and the delay of 132 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The Delay Condonation Application (CLMA No.140 of 2019) stands disposed of.

2.Heard Shri Anil Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State-appellants, and Shri D.K. Joshi, learned Counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner; and, with their consent, this Special Appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission.

3.The respondent-writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking direction to allow him to continue in the services of the Forest Department as daily wager in Kedarnath Forest Wild Life Division, Gopeshwar, District Chamoli; for mandamus directing the respondents to pay him wages regularly; and to direct the respondents to pay arrears of wages due to him since January, 2017 to June, 2018.

4.In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge noted that the petitioner was visually handicapped, with total visual disability of upto 40%; his father was Freedom Fighter; the Government had policy of providing employment to dependents of Freedom Fighters; the petitioner belonged to remote area of District Chamoli, he intends to stay in the hilly areas of District Chamoli, and he does not want to migrate from there; he was given appointment in Class IV post on contractual basis; the learned Government Pleader was directed to obtain

instructions in the matter, and to give engagement to the petitioner on contractual basis; and, on instructions, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel had stated that the petitioner was engaged as fire extinguisher on contractual basis upto 16.06.2018; and, thereafter, he was not engaged as there was no work. The learned Single Judge opined that the submission, regarding non-availability of work, was incorrect as plantation work was being carried on by the Forest Department. The Divisional Forest Officer was directed to engage the petitioner on contractual basis.

5.Shri Anil Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, would submit that, since the respondent-writ petitioner was engaged as fire extinguisher upto 16.06.2018, and as there was no work thereafter, his services, as daily wage employee, was disengaged; no right accrues in favour of daily wage worker to claim continuous appointment; and the learned Single Judge had erred in issuing mandamus to the authorities to appoint the respondent-writ petitioner on contractual basis.

6.On the other hand Shri D.K. Joshi, learned Counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, would submit that the services of the petitioner were engaged on daily wages ever since 2011; his services were engaged not only as fire extinguisher but also in plantation work and in other areas; it is not as if the Forest Department is not engaging the services of others as daily wagers for various works in the Forest Department; several persons, junior to the respondent-writ petitioner, have also been engaged, in the Forest Department, as fire extinguisher; and the very fact that the petitioner was engaged more than 7 years ago, and he was continued in service till they were disengaged on 16.06.2018, would show that there is adequate work in different areas under the control of the Forest Department.

7.It is brought to our notice by Shri D.K. Joshi, learned Counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, that, pursuant to the order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge, the respondent-writ petitioner’s services have been re-engaged from August 2018 onwards; but the appellants have not paid him his wages till date including arrears

thereof. Shri Anil Bisht, learned Standing Counsel, would submit that the respondent-writ petitioner was paid arrears of his wages from April to June, 2017, and for the month of April, 2018; and, for rest of the period, payment would be made shortly. While fairly stating that the respondent-writ petitioner’s services were re-engaged, Shri Anil Bisht, learned Standing Counsel would contend that, since the appellants had engaged the respondent in compliance with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, that did not confer any right on the respondent-writ petitioner to claim that he should be engaged as daily wager in perpetuity.

8.This Court would not, ordinarily, issue mandamus directing the Government to appoint person or to engage his services. It does not, however, appear to be in dispute that the services of the respondent-writ petitioner are being engaged, as daily wager, ever since 2011. As long as persons junior to the respondent-writ petitioner are engaged on daily wages, and till regular appointments are made, there is no justification on part of the appellants to disengage his services.

9.Suffice it, in such circumstances, to modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the limited extent that the respondent-writ petitioner’s services as daily wager shall be continued as long as persons junior to him are engaged in the concerned Division of the Forest Department.

10.The Special Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.)Balwant/sukhbant