SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(SC) 1587

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. SINHA, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jammu – Appellant
Versus
Teja Singh – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 292 of 2009, SLP (C) No. 7803 of 2006
Decided On : 16-01-2009

The regularisation of temporary employees in public employment must adhere to the constitutional scheme, and judicial discipline is crucial for the credibility of the judicial institution.

Headnote:

Gratuity - Employment - 1989 Regularisation Scheme - Umadevi and Others, 2006 (4) SCC 1, Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Others, 2008 (10) SCC 1

Fact of the Case:

The respondent was employed with the appellant company as a daily-rated Mazdoor. He was recruited in 1973 and appointed on a regular basis in 1986. His services were terminated in 1993, and he filed for retiral benefits. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed his application based on the regularisation scheme of 1989, which the High Court upheld.

Finding of the Court:

The view of the learned Tribunal and the High Court cannot be sustained, and the impugned judgment is set aside.

Issues: The main issue was the entitlement to retiral benefits based on the regularisation scheme of 1989.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the regularisation of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage, or ad hoc employees in public employment dehors the constitutional scheme is impermissible in law, as per Umadevi and Others, 2006 (4) SCC 1. The court also emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to the constitutional ethos.

Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment is set aside.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent was employed with the appellant company as a daily-rated Mazdoor. He was recruited in the year 1973. He was appointed on regular basis with effect from 11.8.1986. He attained the age of superannuation on 30th August, 1989. Thereafter, again while working on daily-wages, his services were terminated in 1993. He filed a representation for payment of gratuity as also other retiral benefits. He having been denied the retiral benefits on the premise that he had not completed 10 years' qualifying service as required in terms of the Service Rules, he filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

3. The said application was allowed inter-alia on the premise that the appellant had formulated a regularisation scheme in the year 1989 in terms whereof the respondent should have been given a permanent status. The High Court has upheld the said view.

4. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and Others, 2006 (4) SCC 1, has categorically held that keeping in view the constitutional scheme of equality, as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, regularisation or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees in public employment dehors the constitutional scheme is impermissible in law.

5. By way of one time concession the Constitution Bench, however, held as under:

    “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where regular appointments (not illegal appoints) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, 1967 (1) SCR 128, R.N. Nanjundappa, 1972 (1) SCC 409 and B.N. Nagarajan, 1979 (4) SCC 507 and referred to in Para-15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”

6. We may notice that the law in this behalf has been laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court, stating:

    “43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end and the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wags or ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top