IMPORTANT POINT
There is vital distinction between regularisation and conferment of permanence in service jurisdiction.

Headnote:LABOUR LAW - Regularisation and permanence - Distinction between in service jurisprudence - Regularisation does not connote permanence - Respondents were engaged for temporary construction work on muster roll and subsequently on daily wage basis - They completed two years of service after 31-3-1982 - They claimed regularisation on completion of two years of service in terms of Arbitration Award and also claimed permanence - Screening Committee constituted by State Govt. in terms of Awards was required to consider regularisation of casual and daily rated workmen who had completed two years service prior to 31-3-1982 - Respondents were regularised on basis of recommendation of screening committee w.e.f. 1-4-1989 - Their claim for regularisation from 1-4-1982 was referred to Industrial Tribunal - Tribunal allowed the claim - High Court upheld Tribunal’s award - Appeal - Many aspects were required to be examined by Screening Committee - Mere completion of two years of service was not the only criteria - Even as per Arbitration Award fixation in regular pay scale was only for those employees who were recruited with approval of Management and in accordance with law - High Court failed to keep in mind difference between grant of pay scale as distinct from grant of permanency - Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.
       Held : At the outset, we may state that, as held by this Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1, there is a vital distinction between regularisation and conferment of permanence in service jurisprudence. The words "regular" or "regularisation" do not connote permanence. They cannot be construed to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments. They are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure defects in the method of appointments. It has been held in the above judgment that it is a misconception to equate regularisation with permanence. (Para 8)
       Applying the above test to the facts of the present case, the Screening Committee was required to examine the question as to how many workmen could be regularised, keeping in mind the budget provisions, availability of the posts, the number of muster roll workers engaged in the construction work without their being in existence vacant sanctioned posts, the manner in which these muster roll workers were initially recruited with or without the approval of the management and, thereafter, on the basis of eligibility the Screening Committee had to recommend their absorption in regular service. These aspects were required to be examined by the Screening Committee. Mere completion of two years was not the only criteria. Even in the Award dated 31.5.1978 read with Award dated 15.6.1979 the fixation in the regular pay scale was only for those employees who were recruited with the approval of the management and in accordance with law. Even under the Awards, as they then stood, the Screening Committee had to examine the performance of the workmen before granting them the regular pay scale. Granting of pay scale simpliciter is different from grant of permanency. While granting permanency, the State has to consider the number of posts falling vacant, those posts should exist as and by way of regular vacancy, the financial burden of granting permanency and, therefore, in our view, the High Court has failed to keep in mind the difference between the concept of grant of pay scale as distinct from grant of permanency. The State was not under an obligation to constitute Screening Committee at the end of each year. Constitution of the Screening Committee was within the discretion of the State Government dependant upon the above factors. Therefore, there was no question of comparing the case of the present respondents with the case of the workmen who got regularised prior to 31.3.1982. Each exercise by the Screening Committee has to be seen in the light of the above factors. In a given exercise, the State may have sufficient number of vacant posts to accommodate certain number of workers. However, that may not be the case in the subsequent years. Therefore, there is no question of any discrimination in the matter of regularisation or in the matter of grant of permanency. (Para 9)
       In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench dated 5.12.2002 in Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 867/02 and remit the matter for de novo consideration in the light of the judgment of this Court in Umadevi’s case.(Para 10)
       The grant of regular pay scales was directly linked to the question of regularisation. In the circumstances, the judgment delivered by us in Civil Appeal No. 254/04 would apply to the facts of the present case also.(Para 17)

JUDGMENT

Civil Appeal No. 254 of 2004:

Kapadia, J. - The distinction between regularisation and conferment of permanence in civil service arises for determination in this civil appeal filed by the appellant-Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. against decision dated 5.12.2002 delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan in Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 867 of 2002.

2. Respondents 1 to 20 were engaged for temporary construction work in different divisions on muster roll around 21.4.1980 and on subsequent dates on daily wage basis. They completed two years of service after 31.3.1982. They claimed regularisation on completion of two years of service in terms of an Arbitration Award (Part I) dated 31.5.1978. Under para 15 of the said Award, it was stipulated that fixation in the regular pay scale for employees recruited on or after 1.4.1978 shall be regularised by the recruitment policy to be detailed in the Award to follow. On 15.6.1979 the second Award was accordingly published under which it was inter alia stipulated that workmen (work-charged) engaged between 1.4.1979 and 30.6.1979 have to be screened and if found satisfactory be classified as temporary work-charged and thereafter on rendering of satisfactory service for two years can be regularised in accordance with Award dated 31.5.1978 from 1.4.1981 and so on.

3. Relying on the two Awards, referred to above, on completion of two years the respondents herein claimed permanence. At this stage, it may be noted that, in terms of the above two Awards the State Government constituted Screening Committees from time to time. On 26.9.1983 the duly constituted Screening Committee was required to consider regularisation of casual and daily rated workmen, who had completed two years service prior to 31.3.1982. It needs to be reiterated that the respondents herein did not come in this categorization as they had not completed two years service on 31.3.1982. As stated above, they completed their services only after 31.3.1982. Be that as it may, the respondents herein claimed regularisation in terms of the above two Awards on completion of two years service from the date of their appointment, which as stated hereinabove, was after 31.3.1982. The above two Awards stood terminated w.e.f. 29.6.1985. The matter had a chequered history. Suffice it to state, that the respondents herein have been regularised on the basis of the recommendations of the Screening Committee w.e.f. 1.4.1989. The respondents seek regularisation from the prior date i.e. on and from 1.4.1982. On 6.9.1999 the State Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. In the statement of claim respondents herein submitted that though they have been regularised w.e.f. 1.4.1989, like some of the other workmen they were also entitled to get regularisation w.e.f. 1.4.1982; that though they were entitled for this benefit from 1.4.1982, they have been regularising only w.e.f. 1.4.1989 without any reason and justification; that workmen junior to them have been given this benefit w.e.f. 1.4.1982 and, in the circumstances, respondents herein prayed that all of them be granted permanent pay scale w.e.f. 1.4.1982 with interest at the rate of 18%.

4. By way of written statement, the appellants herein pointed out, that the respondents were engaged for temporary construction work in different divisions; that they were daily wage earners whose names appeared on muster roll; that they were not found eligible for regular pay scales by the Screening Committee on earlier occasions; that they did not comply with the eligibility criteria mentioned in Circular No. 1806 dated 26.9.1983; that vide Circular No. 867 dated 29.6.1985 the earlier two Awards were terminated and, therefore, the respondents herein were not entitled to rely upon those Awards; that ultimately, the respondents have been regularised on 1.4.1989 after they were found eligible by the Screening Committee; that in the State, thousands of muster roll workmen w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 1192

IMPORTANT POINT There is vital distinction between regularisation and conferment of permanence in service jurisdiction.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
There is vital distinction between regularisation and conferment of permanence in service jurisdiction.