advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Service matter - Regularization of temporary employees having service of 10 years - whether the High court can direct to regularize the same - For clarification the appeal was filed as the D.B. dismissed the regular appeal - Apex court held that the matter was already settled in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1193, this case falls under clauses of (ii), (vi) and (v) of judgement, High court can not direct to regularize the post and as such allowed the appeal giving clarification on law = Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai …Appellant Versus Thiru R. Govindaswamy & Ors. …Respondents= 2014(Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41254

Service matter - Regularization of temporary employees having service of 10 years - whether the High court can direct to regularize the same - For clarification the appeal was filed as the D.B. dismissed the regular appeal - Apex court held that the matter was already settled  in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors.,  AIR 2011 SC 1193, this case falls under clauses of (ii), (vi) and (v) of judgement, High court can not direct to regularize the post and as such allowed the appeal giving clarification on law  with out disturbing the postings already given under High court judgement =

 The respondents had been  appointed  as  part-time  sweepers  by
      appellant from 1987 till 1993 as their initial appointments  had  been
      issued to the respondents and others on 1.12.1987, 2.5.1991, 1.4.1993,
      10.4.1993, 27.5.1999 and 19.1.2001.  As the respondents and others had
      been working for more than 10 years, they  filed  Writ  Petition  Nos.
      17468, 17470, 17472, 17473, 17469 and 17471 of 2012  before  the  High
      Court of Madras for seeking regularisation of their services. 
The said
      Writ Petitions were allowed by the common  judgment  and  order  dated
      23.7.2012 with  the  direction  to  regularise  the  services  of  the
      respondents on full time basis based on the individual  representation
      after verifying their service particulars from the date of  completion
      of 10 years of service with time scale of pay.=
Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the writ appeals  which  were
      dismissed.
            Hence, these appeals.
Shri  P.P.  Rao,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the
      appellant has submitted that a direction to regularise  the  part-time
      employees itself is contrary to law and the said direction  could  not
      have been issued. It has further been submitted that as  the  impugned
      judgments and orders had been complied with and the appellant  is  not
      going to disturb any of the respondents and others, the law should  be
      clarified on the issue so that in future the High Court  may  not  use
      the impugned judgment as a precedent.
Apex court conclusion :
   This Court 
in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors.,  AIR  2011 SC 1193
has considered the scope of regularisation of  irregular
      or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and  laid down
      well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity  in  pay
      relevant in the context of the issues involved therein. The  same  are
      as under:

           “8(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226  of
           the Constitution will not issue directions  for  regularisation,
           absorption  or  permanent  continuance,  unless  the   employees
           claiming regularisation had been appointed  in  pursuance  of  a
           regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open
           competitive  process,  against  sanctioned  vacant  posts.   The
           equality clause contained  in  Articles  14  and  16  should  be
           scrupulously followed and Courts should not  issue  a  direction
           for regularisation of services of an  employee  which  would  be
           violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that  is
           irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the
           process of selection which does  not  go  to  the  root  of  the
           process, can be regularised,  back  door  entries,  appointments
           contrary to the  constitutional  scheme  and/or  appointment  of
           ineligible candidates cannot be regularised.
           (ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or  ad  hoc  or
           daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders  of  the
           court, would not confer upon him any right to be  absorbed  into
           service, as such service would be “litigious  employment”.  Even
           temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for  a  long  number  of
           years, let alone service for one or two years, will not  entitle
           such employee to claim regularisation,  if  he  is  not  working
           against a sanctioned post.  Sympathy  and  sentiment  cannot  be
           grounds for passing any order of regularisation in  the  absence
           of a legal right.
           (iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation  with
           a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who  had
           put in a specified number of years of service and continuing  in
           employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others
           who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to  claim  or
           contend that the scheme should be applied to them  by  extending
           the cut-off date or  seek  a  direction  for  framing  of  fresh
           schemes providing for successive cut-off dates.
           (iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation
           as they are not working  against  any  sanctioned  posts.  There
           cannot  be  a  direction  for  absorption,   regularisation   or
           permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees.
           (v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions
           cannot claim parity in salary  with  regular  employees  of  the
           Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can
           employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek
           parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a
           particular salary against the State must arise under a  contract
           or under a statute.” (Emphasis added)


      8.    The present appeals are squarely covered by clauses  (ii),  (iv)
      and (v) of the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, the appeals are allowed.
      However, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case  as  Shri
      P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel has submitted that the appellant  has
      already implemented the  impugned  judgments  and  does  not  want  to
      disturb  the  services  of  the  respondents,  the  services  of   the
      respondents which stood regularised should not be affected.
            With the aforesaid observations, the appeals stand  disposed  of
      accordingly. No order as to costs.
2014(Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41254
B.S. CHAUHAN, A.K. SIKRI


                                      Reportable


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                    CIVIL  APPEAL NOs.  2726-2729 OF 2014
                (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 5681-5684/2014)
                           @ CC. 19326-19329/2013)




      Secretary to Government, School Education
      Department, Chennai                                 …Appellant




                                   Versus




      Thiru R. Govindaswamy & Ors.                        …Respondents




                                    WITH


                    CIVIL  APPEAL NOs. 2730-2731 OF 2014
                (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 5686-5687/2014)
                           @ CC. 19982-19983/2013)








                                  O R D E R




      Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.


      1.    These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgments
      and orders dated 21.11.2012 and 16.11.2012 in Writ Appeal  Nos.  2402,
      2403 2404, 2405 of 2012 and 2555, 2556 of  2012  passed  by  the  High
      Court of Madras, by which the High Court has regularised the  services
      of part-time sweepers (respondents herein).


        2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that:
            The respondents had been  appointed  as  part-time  sweepers  by
      appellant from 1987 till 1993 as their initial appointments  had  been
      issued to the respondents and others on 1.12.1987, 2.5.1991, 1.4.1993,
      10.4.1993, 27.5.1999 and 19.1.2001.  As the respondents and others had
      been working for more than 10 years, they  filed  Writ  Petition  Nos.
      17468, 17470, 17472, 17473, 17469 and 17471 of 2012  before  the  High
      Court of Madras for seeking regularisation of their services. The said
      Writ Petitions were allowed by the common  judgment  and  order  dated
      23.7.2012 with  the  direction  to  regularise  the  services  of  the
      respondents on full time basis based on the individual  representation
      after verifying their service particulars from the date of  completion
      of 10 years of service with time scale of pay.
            Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the writ appeals  which  were
      dismissed.
            Hence, these appeals.


      3.     Shri  P.P.  Rao,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the
      appellant has submitted that a direction to regularise  the  part-time
      employees itself is contrary to law and the said direction  could  not
      have been issued. It has further been submitted that as  the  impugned
      judgments and orders had been complied with and the appellant  is  not
      going to disturb any of the respondents and others, the law should  be
      clarified on the issue so that in future the High Court  may  not  use
      the impugned judgment as a precedent.


      4.    Per contra, Shri P.R. Kovilan P, learned counsel  appearing  for
      the respondents has submitted that as the respondents had been working
      as part-time sweepers for a very long time and not regularising  their
      services would tantamount to exploitation.  Therefore, no interference
      is called for in these appeals.


      5.    The issue involved here remains restricted  as  to  whether  the
      services of the part-time sweepers could have  been  directed  by  the
      High Court to be regularized. The issue is no more res integra.
           In State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi  &  Ors.,  AIR  2006  SC
      1806, this Court held as under:
            “There is no fundamental right in those who have been  employed
           on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to  claim
           that they have a right to be absorbed in service.  As  has  been
           held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post,
           since, a regular  appointment  could  be  made  only  by  making
           appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and
           16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the
           other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a
           claim  for  equal  treatment  with  those  who  were   regularly
           employed. That would be treating unequals as equals.  It  cannot
           also be relied on to claim a right to  be  absorbed  in  service
           even though they have  never  been  selected  in  terms  of  the
           relevant recruitment rules.”


      6.    In Union of India & Ors. v. A.S. Pillai & Ors.,  (2010)  13  SCC
      448, this Court dealt with the issue of  regularisation  of  part-time
      employees and the court refused the relief on the  ground  that  part-
      timers are free to get themselves engaged elsewhere and they  are  not
      restrained from working elsewhere when they are not  working  for  the
      authority/employer.  Being  the  part-time  employees,  they  are  not
      subject to service rules or other regulations which govern and control
      the regularly  appointed  staff  of  the  department.  Therefore,  the
      question of giving them equal pay for equal work or considering  their
      case for regularisation would not arise.


      7.    This Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors.,  AIR
      2011 SC 1193
has considered the scope of regularisation of  irregular
      or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and  laid down
      well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity  in  pay
      relevant in the context of the issues involved therein. The  same  are
      as under:

           “8(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226  of
           the Constitution will not issue directions  for  regularisation,
           absorption  or  permanent  continuance,  unless  the   employees
           claiming regularisation had been appointed  in  pursuance  of  a
           regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open
           competitive  process,  against  sanctioned  vacant  posts.   The
           equality clause contained  in  Articles  14  and  16  should  be
           scrupulously followed and Courts should not  issue  a  direction
           for regularisation of services of an  employee  which  would  be
           violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that  is
           irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the
           process of selection which does  not  go  to  the  root  of  the
           process, can be regularised,  back  door  entries,  appointments
           contrary to the  constitutional  scheme  and/or  appointment  of
           ineligible candidates cannot be regularised.
           (ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or  ad  hoc  or
           daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders  of  the
           court, would not confer upon him any right to be  absorbed  into
           service, as such service would be “litigious  employment”.  Even
           temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for  a  long  number  of
           years, let alone service for one or two years, will not  entitle
           such employee to claim regularisation,  if  he  is  not  working
           against a sanctioned post.  Sympathy  and  sentiment  cannot  be
           grounds for passing any order of regularisation in  the  absence
           of a legal right.
           (iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation  with
           a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who  had
           put in a specified number of years of service and continuing  in
           employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others
           who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to  claim  or
           contend that the scheme should be applied to them  by  extending
           the cut-off date or  seek  a  direction  for  framing  of  fresh
           schemes providing for successive cut-off dates.
           (iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation
           as they are not working  against  any  sanctioned  posts.  There
           cannot  be  a  direction  for  absorption,   regularisation   or
           permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees.
           (v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions
           cannot claim parity in salary  with  regular  employees  of  the
           Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can
           employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek
           parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a
           particular salary against the State must arise under a  contract
           or under a statute.” (Emphasis added)


      8.    The present appeals are squarely covered by clauses  (ii),  (iv)
      and (v) of the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, the appeals are allowed.
      However, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case  as  Shri
      P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel has submitted that the appellant  has
      already implemented the  impugned  judgments  and  does  not  want  to
      disturb  the  services  of  the  respondents,  the  services  of   the
      respondents which stood regularised should not be affected.
            With the aforesaid observations, the appeals stand  disposed  of
      accordingly. No order as to costs.


                                  …………………………….J.
                                  (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN





                                  ………………………………...J.
                                  (A.K. SIKRI)
      New Delhi,
      February 21, 2014




No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.