Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1165

2009(5) Supreme 796
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Agrawal and G.S. Singhvi, JJ.
A. Manjula Bhashini & others — Appellant (s)
versus
The Managing Director, A.P. Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Ltd. and another — Respondent (s)
Civil Appeal No. 3702 of 2006
With C.A. Nos.3685 of 2006, 3703 of 2006, 3704 of 2006, 3705 of 2006, 3706 of 2006, 3707 of 2006, 3709 of 2006, 3710 of 2006, 3712 of 2006, 3713 of 2006, 3714 of 2006, 3715 of 2006, 3716 of 2006, 3717 of 2006, 3718 of 2006, 3721 of 2006, 3723 of 2006, 3724 of 2006, 3726 of 2006, 3727 of 2006, 3728 of 2006, 3729 of 2006, 3730 of 2006, 3731 of 2006, 3732 of 2006, 3733 of 2006, 3734 of 2006, 3737 of 2006, 3742 of 2006, 3744 of 2006, 3748 of 2006, 3749 of 2006, 3750 of 2006, 3751 of 2006, 3752 of 2006, 3753 of 2006, 3754 of 2006 and 3755 of 2006.
Decided on : 06-07-2009

Advocates Appeared:
Dipankar P. Gupta, R. Sundaravardhan, Sr. Advs., T. N. Rao, Ms. Manjeet Kirpal, Mitin Mahapatra, Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, Roy Abraham, Ms. Seema Jain, Vimlesh Kumar, Himinder Lal, S. Vallinayagam, Y. Ramesh, B. V. Niren, Y. raja Gopala Rao, C. S. N. Mohan Rao, R. Santhana Krishnan, Ms. K. Radha Rani, P. Vijaya Kumar, D. Mahesh Babu, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Siddharth Patnaik, Amar Pal, L. Roshmani (for M/s. P. S. N. & Co.), T. V. George, Dr. Roxna Swamy, R. N. Keshwani, T. V. Ratnam, Subhash Sharma, Annam D. N. Rao, Ms. K. Sarada Devi, P. Venkat Reddy, Anil Kumar Tandale, Y. Ramesh, Ms. Y. Ramesh, Ms. Y. Vismai, D. Mahesh Babu, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Amar Pal, B. Sridhar, K. Ram Kumar, Shakil Ahmed Syed, Ms. Sudha Gupta, Guntur Prabhakar, Rana Ranjit Singh, G. Seshagiri Rao, Anis Ahmed Khan, Ms. T. Anamika, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Naveen R. Nath, Aribam Guneshwar Sharma, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Fixation of cut-off date under Section 7, Proviso, Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 is not arbitrary.

Headnote:(a) Interpretation of Statutes – Although the statement of objects and reasons contained in the Bill leading to enactment of the particular Act cannot be made the sole basis for construing the provisions contained therein, the same can be referred to for understanding the background, the antecedent state of affairs and the mischief sought to be remedied by the statute – The statement of objects and reasons can also be looked into as an external aid for appreciating the true intent of the legislature and/or the object sought to be achieved by enactment of the particular Act – It can also be used for judging reasonableness of the classification made by such Act. (Paras 16 and 22)
        AIR 1956 SC 246; AIR 1960 SC 12; (2003) 1 SCC 692; (1975) 1 SCC 166; (1981) 4 SCC 173; (1988) 1 SCC 507; (1987) 3 SCC 279; (2001) 4 SCC 534; 1988 (2) KLT 680; (1969) 2 SCC 283; (1964) 2 SCR 608; AIR 1961 SC 1438; (1977) 3 SCC 212; (1973) 3 SCC 585; (1976) 4 SCC 750; (1980) 2 SCC 203; (2005) 12 SCC 752; (1997) 6 SCC 623 – Relied upon.
        AIR 1952 SC 369; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 304; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 391; 2001 (2) ALT 607; (1980) 2 SCC 591; (1995) 1 SCC 400; (1997) 8 SCC 522; (2001) 3 SCC 574; (2000) 1 SCC 168; (1978) 2 SCC 50; (1983) 2 SCC 33; (2000) 8 SCC 370; AIR 1952 SC 369 – Referred to.
        (b) Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 – G.O. dated 22.4.1994 – A policy of this nature cannot be interpreted as creating a right in favour of all casual labourers to be regularized in service irrespective of the date of completion of the specified period. (Para 24)
        (2002) 4 SCC 573; (2005) 6 SCC 70; (2005) 13 SCC 437; 1998 (2) ALT 5 (SC) – Relied upon.
        (c) Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 – G.O. dated 22.4.1994 – Claim of daily wage workers, who did not complete the contemplated years of service on the cut-off date, for regularization cannot be entertained. (Para 36)
        (d) Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 – Section 7, Proviso – Fixation of cut-off date is not arbitrary. (Para 39)
        (1975) 1 SCC 305; (1985) Supp. SCC 45; (1994) 4 SCC 212; (1998) 5 SCC 111 – Relied upon.
       Facts of the case :
        The questions arising in threes appeals are:
        1. Whether the persons employed on daily wage basis or nominal muster roll or consolidated pay or as contingent worker on full time basis in different departments of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and its agencies/instrumentalities are entitled to be regularised in service on completion of 5 years;
        2. Whether amendments made in the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 by Amendment Act Nos.3 and 27 of 1998 are ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution.
       Finding of the Court :
        The amendments made in the 1994 Act by Act Nos.3 of 1998 and 27 of 1998 do not have the effect of nullifying or overriding the judgment in District Collector v. M.L. Singh (supra). Further, the policy of regularisation contained in first proviso to Section 7 of Act No.27 of 1998 is one time measure intended to benefit only those daily wage employees, etc. who completed 5 years continuous service on or before 25.11.1993 and the employees who completed 5 years service after 25.11.1993 cannot claim regularisation.
       Result : Appeals filed by the employees (C.A. Nos.3702, 3703, 3704, 3705, 3706, 3707, 3709, 3710, 3721, 3733, 3734, 3737, 3742, 3744, 3748, 3749 and 3751 of 2006) are dismissed and those filed by the State Government and agencies/instrumentalities of the State (C.A. Nos.3685, 3712, 3713, 3714, 3715, 3716, 3717, 3718, 3723, 3724, 3726, 3727, 3728, 3729, 3730, 3731, 3732, 3750, 3752, 3753, 3754 and 3755 of 2006) are allowed.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J.—

1. Whether the persons employed on daily wage basis or nominal muster roll or consolidated pay or as contingent worker on full time basis in different departments of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and its agencies/instrumentalities are entitled to be regularised in service on completion of 5 years and whether amendments made in the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (for short ‘the 1994 Act’) by Amendment Act Nos.3 and 27 of 1998 are ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution are the questions which arise for determination in these appeals, some of which have been filed by the State Government and its agencies/instrumentalities and some have been filed by the employees, who could not convince the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) and/or the High Court to accept their prayer for issue of a mandamus to the concerned authorities to regularise their services.

2. In 1970s, 80s and early 90s, the country witnessed an unusual phenomena in the field of public employment. Lakhs of persons were engaged/employed under the Central and State Governments in violation of the doctrine of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 (for short ‘the 1959 Act’) and the rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The officers who were entrusted with the task of making appointments on Class III and Class IV posts misused their power and employed their favourites or all those who enjoyed political power without considering the claims of other similarly situated persons. For avoiding compliance of the mandate of the equality clause enshrined in the Constitution and other statutory provisions, the empowered authorities resorted to the mechanism of employing the persons of their choice on daily wages or nominal muster roll or contract or part time basis with the hope that on some future date the Government will frame policy for regularisation of such employees. In this manner, nepotism, favoritism and even corruption became hallmark of the appointments and a huge illegal employment market developed in the country, a fact of which cognizance was taken by this Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union v. Delhi Administration1 [(1992) 4 SCC 99].

3. State of Andhra Pradesh was no exception to the aforementioned malady. Thousands of persons were employed in different departments of the Government and agencies/instrumentalities of the State on daily wages or nominal muster roll or consolidated pay or part time basis. In some cases, employment was given despite the fact that sanctioned posts were not available. Even if the posts existed, the concerned authorities neither issued advertisement nor sent requisition to the employment exchange(s) and made appointments in complete disregard of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the relevant statutory provisions including the 1959 Act depriving thousands of unemployed persons of their right to be considered for appointment to public posts/offices.

4. In order to check the menace of irregular appointments, which was creating unwarranted financial burden on the State, and, thereby adversely affecting the welfare schemes and development programmes and also causing dissatisfaction among the members of younger generation who were denied the right of consideration for appointment, the Government of Andhra Pradesh decided to bring a legislation for totally banning appointment on daily wages, regulating appointment on temporary basis and for rationalisation of staff pattern and pay structure. In furtherance of that decision, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh promulgated the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Ordinance, 1993. The same was published in the State G

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1165

IMPORTANT POINT Fixation of cut-off date under Section 7, Proviso, Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 is not arbitrary.

Cases Referred (34)

IMPORTANT POINT
Fixation of cut-off date under Section 7, Proviso, Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 is not arbitrary.