SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1722

1996(8) Supreme 215
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Bishamber Dutt -Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 14528-530 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14217-19 of 1996)
Decided on 23-10-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Ms. K. Amareshwari, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Anubha Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondent : G.S. Beqrar and N.S. Behl, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment as part time de hors rules does not entitle regularisation of service whatsoever long such part time employee worked.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Appointment as class IV employees as part time de hors the rules-Claim for regularisation-Respondents were not appointed on regular basis in accordance with rules direction by Tribunal to regularise the service was illegal-Even if they were working regularly for a long time, they were not entitled to regularisation of service. (Para 3)

       

ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi.

3. The admitted position is that the respondent along with others came to be appointed on September 3, 1990, November 14, 1991 and September 14, 1994 as Class IV employees in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts on part-time basis. There is a controversy as to whether they are appointed on hourly basis or on regular basis. The admitted position is that they were receiving the consolidated pay of Rs.500/- per month which was raised to Rs.600/- per month for working six hours a day. It is not necessary to consider the case whether it is full-time or hourly basis or monthly basis. Suffice it to state that they were not appointed to a regular post after selection according to rules; they were appointed as part-time employees de hors the rules. The question, therefore, is : whether they are entitled to the temporary status or regularisation as directed by the Tribunal? It is seen that pursuant to the enquiry whether temporary status should be granted to the part-time employees, directions were issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension dated July 12, 1994 in the Memorandum, Clause 3, that they are not entitled to such status. Since they are not appointed on regular basis in accordance with rules the direction issued by the Tribunal to regularise the service is obviously illegal. It is then contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the fact that they were regularly working for a long time they are entitled to regularisation. We do not appreciate the stand taken on behalf of the respondents. Unless they are appointed on regular basis according to rules after consideration of the claims on merits, there is no question of regularisation of the services.

4. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The orders of the Tribunal is set aside. No costs.

Appeals allowed.

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top