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