Summary
A registration clerk remained a daily-wage employee despite an earlier judgment setting aside his termination for compliance with recruitment procedure. That judgment had not found him regularly appointed, and the separate claim to regularisation had been rejected. The later reinstatement ruling could establish continued daily-wage employment in the absence of lawful termination, but did not confer regular status. Arrears on the daily-wage basis were directed from institution of the relevant 2011 writ petition.
Issues
- Whether the earlier recruitment and reinstatement rulings conferred regular service status or merely continued daily-wage employment.
Held
- The selection minutes distinguished candidates recommended against regular and probable vacancies from eleven daily wagers, including the respondent. The earlier finding of compliance with Rule 22 did not constitute a finding that his appointment was regular. (¶ 16–17)
- The respondent had no vested right to regularisation and his plea had been rejected in the separate special appeal. Quashing rejection of his representation could not be construed as a mandamus for regularisation or regular employment; without lawful termination he could be treated as continuing only on a daily-wage basis. (¶ 18–20)
- Any wages due on that basis were to be computed and paid within three months, with arrears running from institution of Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition 67599 of 2011. (¶ 21)
Result
Appeals disposed of declaring daily-wage, rather than regular, status and directing payment of applicable arrears within three months. No costs; pending applications disposed of.