Back
2023 Supreme(SC) 350
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ajay Rastogi, Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.
Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr. etc. etc. – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal and Ors. etc. etc. – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 10563-10569 of 2017 with Civil Appeal No. 10570 of 2017
Decided On : 11-04-2023
For Appellant(s) Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Krishnamoorthy, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. Kumanan, AOR Mr. Shaikh F. Kalia, Adv. Ms. Divya Singh, Adv. Mr. Vinodh Kanna B., AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sureshan P., AOR Mr. Deepak Joshi, Adv. Mr. Bhupender Singh, Adv. Mr. Joseph Sebastian, Adv. Mr. P Wilson, Sr. Adv. Mr. R. Nedumaran, AOR Mr. Apoorv Malhotra, Adv. Ms. Sapna Pillai, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Mishra, Adv. Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, AOR Mr. P. C. Chandrashekhar, Adv. Ms. Pinky Pawar, Adv. Mr. Aakas Pathak, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR Mr. S. Nandakumar, Adv. Ms. Deepika Nandakumar, Adv. Mr. Anand Murthi Rao, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Adv. Mohd. Nizamuddin Pasha, Adv. Mr. Shivendra Pandey, Adv. Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad, Adv. Mr. A. Raja Rajan, Adv. Mr. Subham Kothari, Adv. Mr. Prashant Padmanabhan, AOR Mr. Padam Priya, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Ms. Kajal Kumari, Adv. Mr. Raja Sanoor P., Adv. Mr. K. S. Selvan, Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Adv. Ms. Priya R, Adv. Ms. Ishita Chowdhury, Adv. Ms. Pariksha, Adv. Mr. S. Sabari Bala Pandian, Adv. Mr. Avinash Kumar, Adv.
Courts cannot direct for creations of posts; employees not appointed against regular sanctioned posts are not entitled to reinstatement or regularization.
Headnote:Employment - Government Scheme - 1989-1990, 1996-1997, 2001, 2006, 2008, 2011 - The court discussed the government's scheme introduced in 1989 to provide employment to educated youth in rural areas and subsequent disbanding and restoration of the scheme. The judgment also referred to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (Act 2005) which aimed to provide at least one hundred days of guaranteed wage employment to every poor household in rural areas.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a challenge by Village Level Workers (MNP) against the State Government's order disbanding the MNP scheme.Finding of the Court:
The Division Bench set aside the order directing reinstatement and regularization of MNP workers.Issues:
Whether the MNP workers were entitled to reinstatement and regularization after the government disbanded the MNP scheme.Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that as the MNP workers were not appointed against regular sanctioned posts in any government establishment, they were not entitled to reinstatement or regularization. It also emphasized that courts cannot direct the creation of posts.Final Decision:
The appeals succeeded, and the impugned judgment was set aside with no costs awarded.JUDGMENT
Ajay Rastogi, J.
1. The instant appeals have been preferred at the instance of State of Tamil Nadu assailing the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dated 19th August, 2014 affirming order of the learned Single Judge dated 23rd January, 2012 in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the State Government to create the posts under the designation “Village Level Workers” which is called as “Makkal Nala Paniyalargal” (hereinafter being referred to as “MNP”) or by any other name but shall accommodate the persons who were on the rolls of MNP on the date of issuance of G.O.M No. 86 dated 8th November, 2011 against any vacant post in the State Government schools, village Panchayats, town Panchayats, Municipalities, Corporations, Collector Office, village offices or any other Government offices and undertakings of the Government of Tamil Nadu throughout the State of Tamil Nadu, according to the qualification possessed by each candidate, without reference to age in their native, taluk or revenue District. It was further directed that if any one of the MNP who could not be accommodated or is ineligible, the State Government shall pay last drawn salary for the period from 1st December, 2011 to 31st May, 2012.
2. The brief facts of the case culled out from the record and relevant for the present purpose are that the Government of Tamil Nadu introduced a scheme dated 2nd September, 1989 through the Rural Development Department in the Budget speech of 1989-1990 providing employment to the educated youth in rural areas who have completed 10th standard for various items of work in the village panchayat that can be entrusted to the unemployed youth and took a decision to implement the scheme at the village level and to engage at least two village level workers one male and one female who would be engaged in each of the village panchayats in the State. Thus, a total of 25,234 workers were to be engaged throughout the State on a monthly honorarium of Rs.200/- and it entrusted separate responsibilities to male and female workers. The Government also adopted a mechanism to be implemented at the local area where the appointments are to be made for male/female workers at village panchayat level for keeping the transparency while making appointment of unemployed educated youth.
3. It manifests from the record that persons were appointed under the scheme introduced by the State Government under its policy dated 2nd September, 1989. Later, the scheme was disbanded by the Government by order dated 13th July, 1991 on the premise that the appointments made of MNP are in no way helpful for the execution of programmes at village level except causing additional expenditure of Rs.6 crores per annum to the Government and left the execution of various developmental activities concerned through extension officers at block level.
4. In consequence thereof, the persons who were engaged as MNP pursuant to policy decisions of the Government dated 2nd September, 1989, their services stood terminated/discontinued.
5. Again, by GO of the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department (hereinafter referred to as “Department”) dated 24th February, 1997, the scheme was restored by the Government in the Budget for the year 1996-1997 for providing employment to 25,000 youths on the terms and conditions earlier introduced pursuant to Circular dated 2nd September, 1989, on an honorarium of Rs.500/- per month for two MNPs in each village panchayat(one male and one female) for assisting in the maintenance of village assets and libraries & implementation of adult literacy programme in villages.
6. The policy decision of the Government which was earlier introduced by Order dated 2nd September, 1989 for all practical purposes and later restored by the Government vide order dated 24th February, 1997 was again disbanded with immediate effect by order dated 1st June, 2001. The Government again revived the services of M
