IMPORTANT POINT
The Courts/Tribunals cannot direct regularisation of temporary appointees de hors the rules, nor can it direct continuation of service of a temporary employee whether called a casual, ad hors or daily rate employee.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—Termination of service—Contractual Appointments—Claim of applicability of a purported policy decision of State as regards regularisation of services of appellant Board—Claimants, respondents were engaged on contract basis in two different schemes—Appellant Board, a local authority undertakes execution of schemes of various nature including laying down of sewerage lines, water supply etc. for Municipalities, Municipal Corporations and Improvement Trusts—Writ Petitions filed by respondents for directing appellant Board to implement scheme of regularisation of their services—Whether High Court was justified in allowing the writ petitions directing appellant to reinstate respondents in service—(No).
       Held : A statutory board is an autonomous body. Nothing has been brought to our notice to show that under the statute any direction issued by the State shall be binding on it. The State may have some control with regard to recruitment of employees of local authorities, but such control must be exercised by the State strictly in terms of the provisions of the Act. The statutory bodies are bound to apply the rules of recruitment laid down under statutory rules. They being ‘States’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are bound to implement the constitutional scheme of equality. Neither the statutory bodies can refuse to fulfil such constitutional duty, nor the State can issue any direction contrary to or inconsistent with the constitutional principles adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The purported directions of the State were otherwise bad in law in so far as thereby the statutory rules were sought to be superceded. A circular letter furthermore is not a statutory instrument. It was not even issued by the State in exercise of the power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Even a scheme issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, would not prevail over statutory rules.(Para 9)
       In the instant case, the High Court did not issue a writ of mandamus on arriving at a finding that the respondents had a legal right in relation to their claim for regularisation, which it was obligated to do. It proceeded to issue the directions only on the basis of the purported policy decision adopted by the State. It failed to notice that a policy decision cannot be adopted by means of a circular letter and, as noticed hereinbefore, even a policy decision adopted in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India in that behalf would be void. Any departmental letter or executive instruction cannot prevail over statutory rule and constitutional provisions. Any appointment, thus, made without following the procedure would be ultra vires. (Para 17)
       An endeavor was made also to submit that the respondents were employed on daily rated basis and their services were transferred to the Corporation. No such case was made out and in any event, as and when the respondents themselves agreed to be appointed on a contractual basis by the appellant-Board, at this juncture they cannot be heard to say that the purported transfer of their services by the State of Punjab to the appellant-Board was illegal. Even no such case has been made out in the special leave petition.(Para 21)
       (ii) Constitution of India—Article 162—A scheme issued under Article 162 would not prevail over statutory rules—Service Law.(Para 9)
       (iii) Constitution of India—Articles 309, 162—Service conditions—Once it is held that terms and conditions of service including recruitment of employees were to be governed either by statutory rules or rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution—It must necessarily be held that any policy decision adopted by the State in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 162 of the Constitution would be illegal and without jurisdiction—Service Law.(Para 12)
       (iv) SERVICE LAW—Temporary or Casual Employment—Claim of Regularisation—Held, no person who has temporarily or casually been employed could be directed to be continued—By doing so it would be creating another mode of public employment which is not permissible—Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 : Relied on.(Para 13)
       (v) SERVICE LAW—Appointments—Distinction between appointments made ‘irregularly’ and not ‘illegally’—Regularisation can be made in relation to appointments which were irregular in nature and not illegal ones.(Paras 15, 16)
       (vi) ADMINISTRATIVE LAW—Policy decision—A policy decision cannot be adopted by means of a circular letter—Even a policy decision adopted in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India in that behalf would be void—Any departmental letter or executive instruction cannot prevail over statutory rule and constitutional provisions.(Para 17)
       (vii) SERVICE LAW—Appointments—Any appointment made without following the procedure would be ultra vires—Rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed—Courts/Tribunals cannot direct regularisation of temporary appointees de hors the rules, nor can it direct continuation of service of a temporary employee, whether called a casual, ad hoc or daily rate employee) or payment of regular salaries to them—Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workman, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2006(12) SCALE 1 : Relied on.(Para 18)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. These appeals involve the question of applicability of a purported policy decision of the State as regards regularisation of services of the employees of Appellant-Board.

3. It is a local authority. It undertakes execution of schemes of various nature including laying down of sewerage lines, water supply etc. for Municipalities, Municipal Corporations and Improvement Trusts. For each scheme, estimates are prepared and expenses therefor are borne by the principal.

4. Respondents in these appeals were engaged on contract basis in two different schemes, i.e., for maintenance of water supply and sewerage lines for Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and for maintenance of tube wells installed under URP project for Municipal Corporation, Hoshiarpur respectively. Their services were terminated. Respondents prayed for regularisation of the services. The said prayer was rejected by the appellant in terms of the scheme framed scheme for regularisation by the State of Punjab on 23.1.2001 and 28.3.2003.

5. Writ petitions were filed by the respondents, inter alia, for issuance of a Writ in the nature Mandamus directing the respondents therein including appellant-Board to implement the said scheme of regularisation of their services and setting aside the orders rejecting such prayers made on their behalf. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the writ petitions directing the appellant to reinstate the respondents in service with all consequential benefits. Appellant was also directed to regularise their services.

6. Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the purported scheme of State of Punjab cannot be said to be applicable to the employees of the appellant-board as would appear from a copy of a letter dated 14.10.2002 issued by the Additional Director, Local Government of Punjab, Chandigarh, which is in the following terms–

“OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HOSHIARPUR

Receipt No. 570 dated 22.10.2002

The Executive Officer,Municipal Council, Hoshiarpur.

Memo No.AS2-DSS(5-A)2002/23660Dated 14.10.2002

Subject : To appoint employees working under URP scheme on the regular basis.

With reference to your Memo No.530 dated 7.6.2001 on the subject cited above.

You are hereby informed that in the absence of instructions to regularize the services of those employees who are working on contract basis, the Director, Local Govt. Punjab after thoughtful consideration, has filed the case.

Sd/-

Additional Director”

7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment.

8. Before we proceed to consider the rival contentions of the parties, we would notice the purported scheme of regularisation issued by the State of Punjab. We may also notice that the said purported scheme was communicated by a letter addressed to all Heads of Departments of the State of Punjab, Registrar, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, all the Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners and all the Corporations and Boards in the State of Punjab. In the letter dated 23.1.2001, it was stated:

“(iv)For accommodating work charged/daily wage/other category workers as per the above policy against the existing vacancies the existing instructions requiring permission of the DOP and FD for filling up the vacancies would not apply. Wherever for the absorption/regularization of workers as per the above policy any Department’s own Recruitment Rules come in the way, such provisions of the Recruitment Rules will stand relaxed.”

By reason of letter dated 28.3.2003, it was clarified :

“Subject : Review of policy regarding regularization of services of Work charge/Daily Wage Workers.

Regarding the above mentioned subject, I am directed to invite your attention to letter No.11/34/2000-4PP. 3/1301-02 dated 23.1.2001 and to write that as per the contents of Para No.4 of this letter, it is provided that the work charge/daily wage workers who have completed thr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 1246

IMPORTANT POINTThe Courts/Tribunals cannot direct regularisation of temporary appointees de hors the rules, nor can it direct continuation of service of a temporary employee whether called a casual, ad hors or daily rate employee.

Cases Referred (7)

IMPORTANT POINT
The Courts/Tribunals cannot direct regularisation of temporary appointees de hors the rules, nor can it direct continuation of service of a temporary employee whether called a casual, ad hors or daily rate employee.