JUDGMENT

Balbir Singh Chauhan, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgments and orders dated 21.11.2012 and 16.11.2012 in Writ Appeal Nos. 2402, 2403 2404, 2405 of 2012 and 2555, 2556 of 2012 passed by the High Court of Madras, by which the High Court has regularised the services of part-time sweepers (Respondents herein).

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that:

The Respondents had been appointed as part-time sweepers by Appellants from 1987 till 1993 as their initial appointments had been issued to the Respondents and others on 1.12.1987, 2.5.1991, 1.4.1993, 10.4.1993, 27.5.1999 and 19.1.2001. As the Respondents and others had been working for more than 10 years, they filed Writ Petition Nos. 17468, 17470, 17472, 17473, 17469 and 17471 of 2012 before the High Court of Madras for seeking regularisation of their services. The said Writ Petitions were allowed by the common judgment and order dated 23.7.2012 with the direction to regularise the services of the Respondents on full time basis based on the individual representation after verifying their service particulars from the date of completion of 10 years of service with time scale of pay.

Aggrieved, the Appellant preferred the writ appeals which were dismissed. Hence, these appeals.

3. Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants have submitted that a direction to regularise the part-time employees itself is contrary to law and the said direction could not have been issued. It has further been submitted that as the impugned judgments and orders had been complied with and the Appellants are not going to disturb any of the Respondents and others the law should be clarified on the issue so that in future the High Court may not use the impugned judgment as a precedent.

4. Per contra, Shri P.R. Kovilan P, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has submitted that as the Respondents had been working as part-time sweepers for a very long time and not regularising their services would tantamount to exploitation. Therefore, no interference is called for in these appeals.

5. The issue involved here remains restricted as to whether the services of the part-time sweepers could have been directed by the High Court to be regularized. The issue is no more res integra.

In State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. AIR 2006 SC 1806, this Court held as under:

There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules.

6. In Union of India and Ors. v. A.S. Pillai and Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 448, this Court dealt with the issue of regularisation of part-time employees and the court refused the relief on the ground that part-timers are free to get themselves engaged elsewhere and they are not restrained from working elsewhere when they are not working for the authority/employer. Being the part-time employees, they are not subject to service rules or other Regulations which govern and control the regularly appointed staff of the department. Therefore, the question of giving them equal pay for equal work or considering their case for regularisation would not arise.

7. This Court in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Daya Lal and Ors. AIR 2011 SC 1193, has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in a