ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 22-01-2024 The writ petition is filed for regularisation of services of the petitioners, which was rejected by the learned Single Judge, against which the present appeal is filed.

2. The writ petition sought for a mandamus to the authorities to grant approval for regularisation of services, as recommended by the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Forbesganj. The petitioners also claim for pay and benefits with retrospective effect from 26.08.2016; the petitioners having been appointed on contract basis between 2008 to 2011.

3. The learned Single Judge found that there was no policy of the State regarding regularisatoin of contractual employees and the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi(3) & Ors.; (2006) 4 SCC 1 read with the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Sevak Yadav & Anr. Vs.

The State of Bihar & Ors.; 2013(i) PLJR 964, does not apply.

4. It is not for the Executive Officer to frame a policy for the State nor is the State bound by the recommendation made by an Executive Officer. Uma Devi (supra) found the regularisation and permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage and adhoc employees appointed/recruited and continued for long in employment, to be against the constitutional scheme envisaged in public employment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also deprecated the practice of invoking the wide power under Article 226 to stay regular recruitment process, which effectively results in continuance of the adhoc appointments, leading to the principle of equity for all, being frustrated and it being confined to just a few; categorising such continuance also to be ‘litigious employment’.

5. It was also held that none appointed in a temporary, contractual or casual manner can have a legitimate expectation to be absorbed, regularised or permanently continued in employment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also deprecated orders of the High Courts granting salary to the daily-wagers, as paid to regular employees from the date of their appointment; making it clear that, at best it could have been granted only from the date of its order. In fact, while directing consideration of regularisation of certain category of employees, in para-53, it has been specifically stated that such regularisation is a one time measure to protect the services of irregularly appointed employees in duly sanctioned post. It was also directed that regular appointments should be undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts, which process should be set in motion within six months.

6. Uma Devi (supra) did not at all provide for perpetuating such illegality by making contractual appointments and then granting regularisation later, which militates against the rule of equality and equity in public employment. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.

7. The Appeal stands dismissed.

8. Interlocutory application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

( Rajiv Roy, J)

Sujit/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 03.02.2024 Transmission Date