1. Dispute regarding the date of regularization for ad hoc employees—whether it should be from the date of entry into service or the date of recruitment rules. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 157
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., N. P. Singh, Sujata. V. Manohar, J.
REGISTRAR GENERAL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER, APPELLANTS
Versus
V. THIPPA SETTY AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeal No. ... of 1996 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2214 of 1994),
decided on January 19, 1996.
Important Points
Regularization of ad hoc appointees, casual labor, or daily-rated employees should generally be prospective rather than retrospective to avoid disturbing the seniority of regularly appointed employees in the cadre.
Subject
Service Law - Regularization of Service
Headnote
Constitution of India, 1950 - Strict discipline of service – Investigation - Court have heard counsel for both sides perused orders of Tribunal By previous order Tribunals direction was to respondents with effect from date of promulgation of recruitment rules or from date of their appointment depending on seniority list - That was a direction which was flexible one leaving it to management to consider from what date should take effect - In pursuance of direction on new recruitment rules being promulgated was given effect from that date - However in subsequent order passed by Tribunal has directed that they should be treated as having been conferred regular status with effect from of their entry into service as Investigators – Held, It must be remembered that they had entered as ad hoc appointees and question was whether they should be in service since they had worked as ad hoc employees for a sufficiently long time - If ad hoc is from back in this manner it will disturb seniority of regularly appointed employees in cadre and therefore ordinarily must take effect prospectively and not retrospectively - It must also be borne in mind that ad hoc appointees casual and daily-rated persons are not subject to strict discipline of service and it is a matter of common experience that their attendance is very often not regular and at times they do not even meet qualification for appointment since they are taken on ad hoc basis - These deficiencies are overlooked by way of granting of relaxation and therefore care must be taken to see that they do not upset seniorities of regular appointees - Whether they qualify in a given case or not is not relevant but what is relevant is that should be prospective and not retrospective as chances their upsetting seniorities cannot be overlooked - Tribunal must take care to see that when they pass orders of from retrospective dates those who are likely to be affected on account of that order are not before that court and unwittingly their careers are not adversely affected - Ordinarily therefore must be prospective – Order according
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
service law
-
regularization
- seniority (Para 2)
-
regularization
-
service law
Table of Contents
2. Whether ad hoc employees should be regularized retrospectively from their date of entry or prospectively from the date of recruitment rules. (Para 2 )
3. Retrospective regularization of ad hoc appointees disturbs the seniority of regular employees, as ad hoc staff may lack strict discipline or required qualifications. (Para 2 )
4. Regularization of ad hoc appointees should ordinarily be prospective to avoid upsetting the seniority of regularly appointed employees. (Para 2 )
5. Impugned order set aside and the appellant's order of regularization restored. (Para 3 )
6. Should the regularization of ad hoc employees be prospective or retrospective?
Regularization should ordinarily be prospective. Retrospective regularization can disturb the seniority of regularly appointed employees in the cadre. (Para 2 )
7. Why is retrospective regularization of ad hoc appointees problematic regarding seniority?
Ad hoc appointees, casual labor, and daily-rated persons are often not subject to strict service discipline, may have irregular attendance, or might not meet the standard qualifications for appointment. (Para 2 )
8. What precaution must Tribunals take when ordering retrospective regularization?
Tribunals must ensure that persons likely to be affected by the retrospective regularization are before the court so their careers are not adversely affected unwittingly. (Para 2 )
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. We have heard counsel for both sides perused the orders of the Tribunal dated 16-12-1991 and 19-2-1993. By the previous order, the Tribunals direction was to regularise the respondents with effect from the date of promulgation of the recruitment rules or from the date of their appointment, depending on the seniority list. That was a direction which was a flexible one leaving it to the management to consider from what date regularisation should take effect. In pursuance of the said direction, on the new recruitment rules being promulgated on 11-5-1985, the regularisation was given effect from that date. However, in the subsequent order passed by the Tribunal on 19-2-1993, the Tribunal has directed that they should be treated as having been conferred regular status with effect from 5-2-1981, that is, the date of their entry into service as Investigators. It must be remembered that they had entered as ad hoc appointees and the question was whether they should be regularised in service since they had worked as ad hoc employees for a sufficiently long time. If the ad hoc service is regularised from the back date in this manner, it will disturb the seniority of regularly appointed employees in the cadre and, therefore, ordinarily the regularisation must take effect prospectively and not retrospectively. It must also be borne in mind that ad hoc appointees, casual labour and daily-rated persons are not subject to strict discipline of service and it is a matter of common experience that their attendance is very often not regular and at times they do not even meet the qualification for appointment since they are taken on ad hoc basis. These deficiencies are overlooked by way of granting of relaxation and, therefore, care must be taken to see that they do not upset the seniorities of regular appointees. Whether they qualify in a given case or not is not relevant but what is relevant is that regularisation should be prospective and not retrospective as the chances of their upsetting the seniorities cannot be overlooked. The Tribunal must take care to see that when they pass orders of regularisation from retrospective dates, those who are likely to be affected on account of that order are not before that court and unwittingly their careers are not adversely affected. Ordinarily, therefore, the regularisation must be prospective.
3. For the above reasons, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and restore the order of regularisation passed by the appellant. We allow the appeal accordingly with no order as to costs.
4. A copy of this judgment must be sent to the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal for circulation.
