1. Ad hoc employees seeking regularization of service through relaxation of rules. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 582
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.Jagannadha Rao : S.P.Bharucha
Government Of Orissa
Versus
Hanichal Roy
Case No. : 793 of 1993
Date of Decision : 5/5/98
Important Points
An administrative tribunal cannot exercise the discretionary power to relax service rules when such power is specifically vested in the government; the tribunal must leave the decision to the government to determine if relaxation is necessary or expedient in the public interest.
Subject
Service Law - Regularisation of Service
Headnote
(A) Service Rules - Rule 14 (Relaxation) - Regularisation of ad hoc service - Power to relax rules - Rule provides that government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax provisions of rules in public interest for any class or category of persons - Tribunal cannot exercise this power by relaxing the rule itself - Decision to relax rules must be left to the government. (Paras 2, 3)
Facts of the case:
Respondents had served for approximately one and a half years on an ad hoc basis. The administrative tribunal, considering the circumstances of their service, held that there was no reason why the appropriate rule for regularisation of their service should not be relaxed and ordered accordingly.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal was not right in effectively relaxing the rule itself. The rule requires the government to form an opinion, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is necessary or expedient to relax provisions in public interest. Therefore, the tribunal should have left the decision to the government.
Issues: Whether an administrative tribunal has the authority to relax service rules when the power to do so is specifically vested in the government.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a rule empowers the government to relax provisions for reasons recorded in writing in public interest, the tribunal cannot substitute its own decision for that of the government by ordering such relaxation; it must leave the decision to the government to determine if relaxation is necessary or expedient.
Result: Appeal allowed to the extent that the direction by the tribunal is set aside.
Facts of the case:
Respondents had served for approximately one and a half years on an ad hoc basis. The administrative tribunal, considering the circumstances of their service, held that there was no reason why the appropriate rule for regularisation of their service should not be relaxed and ordered accordingly.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal was not right in effectively relaxing the rule itself. The rule requires the government to form an opinion, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is necessary or expedient to relax provisions in public interest. Therefore, the tribunal should have left the decision to the government.
Issues: Whether an administrative tribunal has the authority to relax service rules when the power to do so is specifically vested in the government.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a rule empowers the government to relax provisions for reasons recorded in writing in public interest, the tribunal cannot substitute its own decision for that of the government by ordering such relaxation; it must leave the decision to the government to determine if relaxation is necessary or expedient.
Result: Appeal allowed to the extent that the direction by the tribunal is set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a tribunal can order the relaxation of service rules or if such power is vested exclusively in the government. (Para 1 , 3 )
3. Rule 14 requires the government to form an opinion and record reasons in writing for relaxing rules in public interest for a specific class of persons. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. A tribunal cannot exercise the government's discretionary power to relax rules; it must leave the decision to the government. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — tribunal's direction set aside — state government directed to examine the case for relaxation under Rule 14. (Para 4 )
6. Who is authorized to relax service rules under Rule 14?
The government is authorized to relax rules if it is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so in public interest, provided reasons are recorded in writing. (Para 2 , 3 )
7. Can a tribunal exercise the government's power to relax rules?
No, a tribunal cannot relax the rules itself; it must leave the decision to the government to determine if relaxation is appropriate under the relevant rule. (Para 3 )
(1) WE need not dilate upon the facts in this appeal by special leave against an order of the orissa Administrative tribunal. Special leave, it may be mentioned, was granted only in regard to the two respondents herein. They had put in approximately one and a half years service, but on ad hoc basis. Taking into account the circumstances in which they had so served, the tribunal held that it found no reason why there should not be a relaxation of the appropriate rule for regularisation of their service and ordered accordingly.
(2) THE Rule that is relevant reads thus:
"14. Relaxation.-When the government are of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these Rules in respect of any class or category of persons in public interest."
(3) THE Rule requires the government to form the opinion, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is necessary or expedient to relax any of the provisions of the Rules in public interest in respect of any class or category of persons. We assume for the purposes of this appeal that the case of the respondents herein falls within a "class or category or persons", but we do not think that the tribunal was right in, in effect, relaxing the appropriate rule itself. Having set out the facts, it should have left it to the government to take the decision under the rule.
(4) THE appeal is allowed to the extent that the aforestated direction by the tribunal is set aside. The respondents case shall be examined by the State government for the purposes of relaxation under Rule 14, having regard to what is stated in the order under appeal and the law as it stands. The decision thereof shall be taken within three months from today.
(5) NO order as to costs.
