SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Thane and Others – Appellants
Versus
Santosh Tukaram Tiware and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8856 of 2022, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3466 of 2022
Decided On : 24-11-2022
Service Law – Termination – Contractual engagement – At relevant time neither there was any selection process followed nor it can be said that appointment of respondent as driver was made after following due procedure as required – At relevant time appointment on contractual basis was made looking to public interest and to see that ambulance is not without any driver – Merely because respondent No. 1 continued in service for longer period on contractual basis High Court ought not to have passed order of regularization – Appointment of respondent No. 1 was purely on stopgap and on contractual basis – High Court has committed a very serious error in ordering regularization – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court quashed and set aside. (Paras 6.1, 6.2 and 7)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4731/2021, by which, the High Court has set aside order of termination issued to respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner and directed the appellant – Zila Parishad to grant him the benefits as regular employee from the date of termination i.e., 15.07.2021, Zila Parishad, Thane has preferred present appeal.
Findings of Court:
High Court has committed a very serious error in ordering regularization as well as quashing and setting aside order dated 15.07.2021 by which on contract being awarded to M/s Rakshak Security Services and Systems Pvt. Ltd., the services of respondent No. 1 was put to an end.
Result : Writ Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4731/2021, by which, the High Court has set aside the order of termination issued to respondent No. 1 herein-original writ petitioner and directed the appellant-Zila Parishad to grant him the benefits as regular employee from the date of termination i.e. 15.07.2021, the Zila Parishad, Thane has preferred the present appeal.
3. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:
3.1 That the Zila Parishad, Thane issued communication dated 29.03.2010 to the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti requesting for immediate recruitment of ambulance drivers at primary health centres on contractual basis till the tender process for supplying/providing driver on contract basis is completed. It was directed to complete the process of appointing the drivers on contract basis locally and on the maximum honorarium of Rs. 7,600/- for each driver. Pursuant to the said communication, the Block Development Officer initiated the process. Vide office order dated 24.05.2010, respondent No. 1-original writ petitioner was appointed temporarily and on contract basis as a driver for a period of two months and an agreement was executed between respondent No. 1 and Health Officer, Primary Health Centre agreeing with the terms and conditions of the employment. One of the conditions was that the appointment of candidate is on the contract basis and is exclusively temporary in nature. That another condition was that if at the appointed place appointment of zila parishad driver is done then the appointment of concerned driver will be terminated. As it took time in completing tender process the tenure/engagement of respondent No. 1 was extended from time to time but for every two months on the same terms and conditions on which earlier he was engaged. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 in the year 2019 gave a representation to the Zila Parishad for permanency on the post of driver and the concerned medical officer issued the experience certificate. That thereafter Taluka Health Officer issued order dated 18.08.2020 for re-employment of respondent No. 1 for temporary basis from 01.11.2019 to 30.09.2020. Again, in the year 2020 respondent No. 1 was re-appointed on contractual basis for a period of 11 months. That respondent No. 1 again submitted his representation and prayed for permanency submitting, inter-alia, he has been working approximately for nine years. That thereafter respondent No. 1-original writ petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4731/2021 before the High Court on 31.07.2021 and prayed for regularization and to confer permanency. Before that by order dated 15.07.2021 and in compliance with order dated 06.07.2021 of CEO, Zila Parishad, Thane, Taluka Health Department terminated the appointment of respondent No. 1 and appointed an outsourcing agency. At this stage, it is required to be noted that appointment of respondent No. 1 as contractual driver was put to an end as by that time the tender process was completed and the contract for providing contractual driver was given to one M/s Rakshak Security Services and Systems Pvt. Ltd. Pune. That the High Court issued the notice in Writ Petition on 30.08.2021 and by an interim order the High Court allowed the original writ petitioner to sign the muster roll and to continue his work. That thereafter by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has not only set aside order of termination dated 15.07.2021 though no such prayer was made, but has ordered regularization and permanency on the ground that he has been continued in service for more than nine years as a driver without break and/or with artificial break.
3.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, Zila Parishad has preferred the present appeal. By order dated 07.03.2022 whi
Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Sheo Narain Nagar and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
Termination – A contractual employee has no right to claim regularisation in service.
Employees appointed on a contractual basis do not have an inherent right to regularization, especially when their appointments are not against sanctioned posts, as established by the Supreme Court in....
Termination of temporary employees should be justified by clear directives, and prior service expectations can create grounds for fair consideration of their continuation.
Regularisation – No such direction can be issued by High Court for absorption/regularisation of employees who were appointed in a temporary unit which was created for a particular project and that to....
Long-serving contractual employees performing regular duties entitled to regularization consideration on parity with similarly situated juniors, per equality under Articles 14/16.
The regularisation of temporary employees is a policy decision and cannot be mandated by the court.
Prolonged temporary employment in essential roles undermines workers' rights; continuous service mandates regularization, countering exploitative practices.
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.