J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral)
1. The appellant was initially inducted into the service of the respondents as a daily rated seasonal employee in 1985. Ever since his induction into service, he allegedly worked with the respondents intermetedly during the season. In 1993, a criminal case was registered against him, as a consequence of which, he was imprisoned for some time. Thereafter, criminal prosecution was initiated against him, which commenced for a period of eleven years two months and twenty nine days. The appellant was, thereafter, acquitted in the year, 2004. After his acquittal, he claimed reinstatement in the service, as also, all consequential benefits including regularisation, as were allowed to persons similarly situated as the petitioner, who were continuing in employment since
1985.
2. While repudiating the claim raised by the appellant in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1038 of 2005, the stand taken by the respondents was that after the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant, he absconded from service and returned back seeking his reinstatement only after his acquittal in 2004. It was, therefore, the contention of the respondents before the learned Single
1
2
Judge that the appellant having not rendered service from 1993 to 2004, on his own voluntarily, was neither entitled to reinstatement nor regularisation.
3. The factual position depicted in the foregoing two paragraphs is not disputed at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant. The only contention at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has lost seventeen years of his precious life for no fault of his. It is submitted that a false case was planted against the appellant without any fault at his hands and that he has been victimized as a consequence thereof.
4. We have considered the contention of the petitioner. The admitted factual position is that the petitioner was merely a daily rated season employee, who worked with the respondents intermittently. When a criminal case was registered against him in 1993, he voluntarily abandoned his employment for a period of eleven years two months and twenty nine days. He was acquitted in 2004 and thereafter approached this Court in 2005. Unfortunately a daily rated seasonal employee has no lien on a post. The claim made by him for reinstatement and regularisation is therefore wholly misconceived. Facts depicting compassion cannot vest any right in the petitioner.
5. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant Special Appeal. The same is accordingly hereby dismissed. The order rendered by the learned Single Judge is accordingly affirmed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.)
26.3.2010
Rathour