2011 (1) Supreme 410
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R V Raveendran and Markandey Katju, JJ.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Daya Lal & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 486 of 2011
[Arising out of SLP [C] No.1927/2005]
with
C.A. No. 487 of 2011 [@ SLP [C] No.1928/2005]
C.A. No. 488 of 2011 [@ SLP [C] No.1930/2005]
C.A. No. 489 of 2011 [@ SLP [C] No.1931/2005]
C.A. No. 490 of 2011 [@ SLP [C] No.1933/2005]
C.A. No. 491 of 2011 [@ SLP [C] No.1934/2005]
C.A. No. 492 of 2011 [@ SLP [C] No.1939/2005]
C.A. No. 493 of 2011 [@ SLP [C] No.13832/2006]
C.A. No. 494 of 2011 [@ SLP [C] No.13851/2006]
C.A. No. 495 of 2011 [@ SLP [C] No.14084/2006]
Decided on : 13-1-2011
(b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Government & Aided Hostels Management Rules, 1982 not being statutory rules but only executive instructions cannot be enforced u/Art. 226 – Moreover the persons employed in the aided hostels not being employees of the Government, writ petition was not maintainable. (Para 10)
(c) Service Law – Regularisation – There cannot be successive directions for scheme after scheme for regularization of irregular or part-time appointments. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
These appeals raise the issues of regularisation and equal pay for equal work in respect of Superintendents and cooks/chowkidars of aided hostels.
Finding of the Court:
None of the respondents is entitled to any relief.
Result : All the appeals allowed. The writ petitions filed by the respondents before the High Court stand dismissed.
Key Points: - Point 1 (!) - Point 2 (!) - Point 3 (!)
JUDGMENT
R.V. Raveendran, J. —
Leave granted.
2. The first matter relates to persons temporarily appointed as Assistant Superintendents in 1985 and 1986 in aided hostels. The prefix ‘Assistant’ was omitted in 1996 and thereafter the respondents were known as Superintendents. The second matter relates to a person temporarily appointed as a Superintendent on 30.6.1998 in an aided hostel. They filed writ petitions contending that they were employed on full-time basis and were discharging functions similar to those of Superintendents in Government hostels, but were being paid only a meagre salary while their counterparts in Government hostels are paid much higher pay in the scale of Rs.4000-6100 in the category (A) and (B) Hostels and Rs.3200-4900 in category ‘C’ hostels. They sought regularization in the posts of Hostel Superintendent from the date of initial appointment and payment of salary on par with hostel Superintendent of class ‘C’ hostels of the Social Welfare Department.
3. The respective respondents in the remaining eight appeals, claim that they were appointed in the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998, as part-time cooks/chowkidars in government hostels run by Social Welfare Department. They claim that their appointment orders were issued by the respective Mess Committee of the hostel where they were employed; that the State Government was paying a fixed amount of Rs.600/- per month in the form of aid to the concerned Hostel Mess Committee which, in turn, was being paid to them as remuneration. The State Government issued an order dated 28.12.1998, stopping the practice of appointing Class IV employees on consolidated wages and to remove any person appointed on that basis. By subsequent circular dated 21.1.1999, the District Social Welfare Officers were directed to remove part time chowkidars/cooks employed by the Department with effect from 1.2.1999 and replace them by ex-servicemen or widows of ex-servicemen. In view of the Government directives, the respondents apprehended their services may be dispensed with. [The services of two of the respondents - Madan Lal Yogi and Kurda Ram who were appointed on 15.7.1995 and 1.7.1995 respectively were however terminated even earlier, on 17.3.1997 and 28.12.1998]. The respondents submitted that this Court had earlier approved a scheme under which part time cooks and chowkidars who were working as on 1.5.1995 were regularized; and that as they (respondents) were all appointed subsequent to 1.5.1995 and were not therefore covered under the said scheme, a fresh scheme should be framed to benefit them. They therefore sought a declaration that the circulars dated 28.12.1998 and 1.2.1999, were invalid and a direction for regularization by framing an appropriate scheme similar to the scheme framed by the State Government in pursuance of the order dated 26.5.1995 of the Rajasthan High Court in1 WP No.3453/1994 — Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Banswara vs. The State of Rajasthan.
4. In the first seven appeals, a learned Single Judge by a common order dated 7.5.2003 allowed the writ petitions. He held that the writ petitioners working on the posts of Superintendent, Cooks and Chowkidars are entitled to salary on par with the salary which was paid to their counterparts holding similar posts in the hostels run by the Social Welfare Department of the State Government with effect from the dates of their respective writ petitions. He also held that any attempt to terminate the services of employees working in the hostels on consolidated salary was unjust and illegal and therefore the writ petitioners should be permitted to continue to work on the posts which they were holding as on the date of filing their respective writ petitions. He directed the State Government to frame a scheme on the same lines in which the State Government had earlier framed a scheme relating to part-time cooks and chowkidars (who were serving as on 1.5.1995). He also quashed the orders dated 28.12.1998 and 21.1.1999 (wh
Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation
Dharwad District PWD Literate Dalit Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka
Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.