IMPORTANT POINT
Daily wagers are not appointees, have no right to regularization.

Headnote:(a) Bihar Agriculture Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006 – Section 6 – “All officers and employees” – Appellants continued to be daily wagers – They cannot be treated as permanent Government employees – Removal from service – No infirmity. (Para 20, 21)
       (2006) 4 SCC 1; (2010) 9 SCC 247 – Relied upon
       (b) Service Law – Appointment – Daily wagers – Not appointees in the strict sense of the term ‘appointment’ – Do not hold a post – Scheme of alternative appointment framed for regular employees of abolished organisation – Not applicable to daily wagers. (Para 22)
       (2006) 4 SCC 132 – Relied upon
       (c) Service Law – Regularisation – Not a matter of course – Depends upon facts of the case and applicable rules. (Para 23)
       Facts of the case:
       The appellants were appointed on daily wages. Some of them had worked as daily wagers for a long period. Services of appellants varied from period to period.
       Nand Kumar, like many others, was appointed as an Accounts Clerk on daily wage basis and some of them were receiving monthly salary in the minimum pay scale with usual allowances.
       The appellants were appointed by the Board/Market Committee/Bazar Samiti on daily wages basis and their services were terminated on repeal of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act.
       Their petition for absorption/regularization was rejected by the High Court.
       Finding of the Court:
       There is no merit in the appeals.

JUDGMENT

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. –

1. Leave granted.

2. Six writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Patna which were taken up and disposed of by the High Court by a common order dated December 9, 2009. The High Court rejected the prayer made by the writ petitioners for absorption/regularisation in their posts.

3. The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows:

1. The appellants were appointed on daily wages. It is not in dispute that some of the appellants had also worked as daily wagers for a long period. It is also not in dispute that the services of said daily wagers varied from period to period. Nand Kumar, appellant, was appointed as an Accounts Clerk on daily wage basis on September 18, 1982. Similarly, others (appellants in civil appeals arising out of SLP [C] Nos.8865- 66/2010, 10876/2010, 20833-20835/2010 and 30317/2010) were also appointed, from time to time, and served as daily wagers. It is not in dispute that some of the appellants received monthly salary in the minimum pay scale with usual allowances.

2. In 2006, the State Legislature passed the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Repeal Act, 2006) with effect from September 1, 2006. As a result whereof, the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1960 and rules framed thereunder in the year 1975 stood repealed, save and except certain decisions rendered earlier as well as disciplinary proceedings initiated or pending against its employees were saved. It appears that in these appeals the appellants are not challenging the validity of the Repeal Act. The claim of the appellants is that they have worked on daily wage basis for a long period and cannot be relieved from service by virtue of Section 6 of the Repeal Act, 2006 and, furthermore, such decision is violative of the principles of natural justice and accordingly is arbitrary.

4. A question has also been raised in these appeals whether the daily wage employees are included within the meaning of “all officers and employees” as used in Section 6(i) of the Repeal Act, 2006. The High Court while answering the said question and dealing with the writ petitions, has observed that the said Section under the Repeal Act itself maintains the distinction between the status of daily wage employees and regular employees of the Board.

5. It appears to us that under Section 4 of the said Repeal Act, the assets and liabilities of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Marketing Board or of the Marketing Committees or Bazar Samitis constituted under the Act of 1960, have vested in the State Government. The State Government by virtue of Section 5 of the said Act, has the authority, power and jurisdiction to issue necessary directions and/or orders to secure the object of the Repeal Act, 2006.

6. In the backdrop of the facts of this case, Section 6 is relevant for the purpose of deciding the cases of the appellants and to find out whether it provides for absorption of the daily wagers who worked for a longer period with the Board. It further appears that by virtue of the said Repeal Act, a Committee of Secretaries was constituted under Section 6(ii) and whether the said Committee has the power to prepare a scheme for absorption/regularisation, denying the absorption of the appellants on the ground that they have been appointed by the Board/Market Committee/Bazar Samiti on daily wages or they have a duty to prepare a scheme for such absorption.

7. Now it is necessary for us to reproduce Section 6 of the said Act which reads as follows :

“Section 6: Absorption of officers and employees of Bihar Agriculture Marketing Board/Market Committee/Bazar Samiti. –

i) On and from the date of repeal of the Act, all officers and employees of the Board, shall remain in employment, as if the Act has not been repealed and they shall continue to be paid same salary and allowances as was payable on the date of repeal of the Act till such time State Government has taken such final decision as is provided hereaft

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 151

IMPORTANT POINTDaily wagers are not appointees, have no right to regularization.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Daily wagers are not appointees, have no right to regularization.