2015 (5) TMI 74 - HC - Income Tax

Regularization of service - whether the services of the petitioner were engaged on contingent basis and it was not a regular appointment and the petitioner has no right to seek regularisation of services, and a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to regularise services of the petitioner - Held that - Petitioner was engaged to work for the respondent may be in different capacities and since the year 2000 work has been extracted by the office of the respondent may be initially on a contingent basis but further on regular basis as is reflected in the internal communication dated 15.11.2007 in which, office of the Addl. Director of Income Tax, Belgaum has forwarded the names of four persons with regard to regularization of their service and communicated to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore. There was move of regularization of services of such employees when the respondents have proceeded to regularise the services of similarly situated persons, and have regularised the services of only two persons by not extending the same benefit to petitioner, the said action is to be inferred as an arbitrary one. After putting nearly fifteen years of service, at this juncture if it is denied, it is violation of the human right also. In the result Respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders, more particularly, keeping in view the internal communication dated 15.11.2007 Annexure-D. Time to comply with the order is months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
Regularization of service of a petitioner who has worked for the Income Tax department for over 14 years, but whose services have not been regularized compared to others with similar tenure.

Analysis:
The petitioner was engaged as a driver-cum-peon by the Deputy Director of Income Tax in 2000, and subsequently transferred to Belgaum when the office was relocated. The petitioner has been working continuously since then and has completed over 14 years of service. The petitioner's services were engaged on a contingent basis initially, but it evolved into a regular basis as indicated in internal communications. The Additional Director of Income Tax, Belgaum, forwarded names for regularization of service, including the petitioner, but only two out of four were regularized due to completing 10 years, while the petitioner had only eight years at that time.

The petitioner argues that not regularizing his services after 14 years would cause great hardship and is arbitrary, violating Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The respondent's counsel contends that since the engagement was on a contingent basis, there is no right for regularizing services, and a writ of mandamus cannot be issued for this purpose. Referring to an internal communication not pertaining to the petitioner is also raised as a point.

The court notes that the petitioner has been working for the respondent since 2000, with work being extracted in various capacities. The internal communication of 2007 regarding regularization of services of employees was significant. The court finds the failure to regularize the petitioner's services, especially after nearly fifteen years of service, when others in similar situations were regularized, to be arbitrary. Denying regularization at this stage is seen as a violation of human rights. Consequently, the court directs the respondents to pass appropriate orders based on the internal communication of 2007 within a specified time frame.

In conclusion, the court orders the respondents to take necessary actions regarding the regularization of the petitioner's services, emphasizing the importance of the internal communication from 2007. The writ petition is disposed of with this directive.