Advocates:
KUSUM CHAUDHARYNAFIS A. SIDDIQUI

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 32

PETITIONER:

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

PIARA SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/08/1992

BENCH:

JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)

BENCH:

JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)

AHMADI, A.M. (J)

KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:

1992 AIR 2130 1992 SCR (3) 826

1992 SCC (4) 118 JT 1992 (5) 179

1992 SCALE (2)384

ACT:

Civil Services :

Constitution of India, 1950:

Articles 14, 16, 32, 136, 226 and 309-

Regularisation/absorption of adhoc and temporary employees

of State Governments and work-charged employees, daily

wage workers and casual labour-Directions of High Court-

Justification of-Orders of State Government prescribing

eligibility criteria for regularisation-Whether arbitrary,

unreasonable and discriminatory-Interference by Court in

service matters-when warranted-Guidelines for regularisation

issued.

HEADNOTE:

Over the last several years a large number of

appointments were made to Class III and IV services in the

two appellant State on ad hoc basis, i.e., without reference

to Public Service Commission or the Subordinate Services

Selection Board and without adhering to employment exchange

requirement. As a result, a large number of ad hoc

employees were continuing for several years without being

regularised and were agitating for their regularisation. To

meet the situation, both the appellant Governments issued

orders from time to time for regularisation of such

employees subject to certain conditions.

In pursuance of these orders a number of persons, who

satisfied the conditions prescribed in each of those order s

were regularised, but many could not be, for the reason that

they did not satisfy one or the other of the conditions

prescribed in the said orders. They were, however, allowed

to continue in service. This category of people approached

the High Court praying for issuance of writ, order or

direction for regularisation of their service. They

contended that the conditions in the said orders were

arbitrary, discriminatory and unrelated to the object.

The work-charged employees, daily-wagers, casual labour

and those

827

employed in temporary/time-bound projects also approached

the High Court for regularisation of their services. Some

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 32

of the petitioners also pleaded for equal pay for equal

work.

Accepting the pleas of the petitioners, the High Court

gave certain directions to the appellant-States for

regularisation of these employees.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s orders, the two appellant

States filed appeals before this Court. Some of the

employees also filed Writ Petitions before this Court

directly, contending that they too were governed by the

directions given by the High Court and that they should be

given the benefit of the same.

On behalf of the appellants the validity and

correctness of the directions given by the High Court were

questioned on the grounds that the High Court had exceeded

its jurisdiction in virtually amending the Government orders

and was not justified in holding that the fixation of a

particular date in the respective Government orders was

arbitrary and/or that it was unrelated to the object sought

to be achieved; that the High Court also erred in holding

that the requirement of having been sponsored by the

Employment Exchange was invalid; that the High Court was not

justified in directing that all persons who had put in one

year’s service should be regularised unconditionally; and

that such a direction would given rise to several

difficulties and complications for the administration, that

there could be a direction for regularisation, w