Estoppel Against Challenging The Nature Of Employment Once It Duly Accepted: Meghalaya High Court

Background Facts

A total of 14 Petitioners were part-time cleaners and sweepers with North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (Respondent) and were appointed on various dated between 1985 and 2008. The Petitioners claimed regularization of their services based on the fact that the Petitioners were working for a considerable period of time. Further, they were not considered for regularization against the sanctioned posts when 26 other employees were given regular employment against same or similar posts. Thus, they filed the writ petition

It was contended by the Petitioners that Respondents had used the services of the Petitioners continuously and they had rendered services for a considerable period of time. Further the stand of the Respondent that there were no sanctioned posts for sweepers was false on account of the fact that the Respondent appointed 5 out of the 26 employees given regular appointment as Sweepers. Thus, the Respondents have discriminated against the Petitioners by not providing them regular employment.

On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondent that the appointment of the Petitioners were on a different footing as they were employed on a part-time basis. Their employment was purely casual in nature and not against any regularized post. Further entry of the Petitioners into service as part-time workers was also not through due selection process, which is necessary for regular employment

Findings of the Court

The court observed that the mode of recruitment of the Petitioners was not through the regular selection process and they were employed only on a part-time basis. This distinguished them from other regular employees. At the time of entering their engagement, the Petitioner were well aware of the nature of their employment and also of the fact that whether they were eligible for regularization.

The court further remarked that since the appointment of the Petitioners as part-time workers stands on a different footing from the 26 regularly appointed persons, no parity can be claimed by the Petitioners. The Cout further observed that:

It is also settled law that there is an estoppel against challenging the nature of appointment, once having duly accepted the same.

Based on the terms of employment and the fact that employment was neither against any sanctioned posts, nor adhoc in nature, but purely part-time, the court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Case No.- WP(C). No. 141 of 2022

Case Name- Gurdeep Singh & Ors vs UOI

Counsel for the Petitioner- Mr. R.Jha, Adv.

Counsel for Respondents- Dr. N.Mozika, DSGI with Ms. A.Pradhan, Adv. for R 1. Mr. V.K.Jindal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. B.Jyrwa, Adv. for R 2 & 3.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment