1. Employment of unskilled daily wage laborers — Regularization by Screening Committee — Dispute over the effective date of regular pay scale. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1371
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Abdul Nazeer, Krishna Murari, JJ.
The Managing Director, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Ajmer & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Chiggan Lal & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 1875 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 19181 of 2017)
Decided On : 07-03-2022
Important Points
The date of regularization and grant of pay scale is at the discretion of the employer/screening committee, and no parity can be claimed in the matter of regularization in different years.
Subject
Employment - Labor Rights and Regulations
Act Referred
SERVICE LAW: .
Headnote
Abatement - Regularization of Employees - Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. V. Nanu Ram and Others, (2006) 12 SCC 494, The Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, Kota v. Shri Karam Singh - Civil Appeal No(s).8807-8808 of 2016
Fact of the Case:
The respondents, unskilled laborers, sought regular pay scale from 01.04.1983 instead of 01.04.1989, challenging the order dated 29.06.1989 passed by the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the date of regularization and grant of pay scale is at the discretion of the employer/screening committee, and no parity can be claimed in the matter of regularization in different years. The High Court's direction for payment of arrears and fixing the grant of regular pay-scale w.e.f. 01.04.1983 was set aside.
Issues: Regularization and grant of pay scale for unskilled laborers.
Ratio Decidendi: The employer has the discretion to decide the date of regularization and grant of pay scale based on various factors, and no parity can be claimed in different years. The Court emphasized that the employer must consider budget provisions, availability of posts, and manner of initial recruitment when recommending absorption in regular service.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court and the order of the learned Single Judge were set aside. The parties were to bear their own costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
Mr. Puneet Jain, Advocate, Ms. Christi Jain, Advocate, Mr. Umang Mehta, Advocate, Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Paritosh Anil, Advocate, Ms. Astha Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Mantika Haryani, Advocate, Mr. Surya Kant, Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Tyagi, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Mr. Puneet Jain, Advocate, Ms. Christi Jain, Advocate, Mr. Umang Mehta, Advocate, Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Paritosh Anil, Advocate, Ms. Astha Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Mantika Haryani, Advocate, Mr. Surya Kant, Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Tyagi, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. Claim for regular pay scale from an earlier date based on parity with employees regularized in previous years. (Para 7 )
3. Regularization depends on employer's discretion considering vacancies, financial burden, and suitability; completion of minimum service is not the sole criterion. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. The date of regularization and grant of pay scale is the employer's prerogative; no parity can be claimed for regularization occurring in different years. (Para 9 , 12 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgments set aside — Regularization date fixed as per employer's order. (Para 12 , 1 , 2 )
6. Who determines the date of regularization for employees and what factors are considered?
The employer or screening committee determines the date of regularization. This decision is based on factors including the nature of the work, number of vacant posts, financial condition of the employer, additional financial burden, and the suitability of the workmen for the job. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. Is the completion of a minimum period of continuous service the sole criterion for regularization?
No, mere completion of a minimum service period is not the only criterion. The constitution of a Screening Committee is within the discretion of the State Government, depending on budget provisions, availability of posts, and the manner of initial recruitment. (Para 10 )
8. Can an employee claim parity in the date of regularization with employees regularized in different years?
No, no parity can be claimed based on regularization made in earlier years. Each regularization exercise must be viewed in light of the specific factors, vacancies, and financial conditions existing in that particular year. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 )
9. Is the grant of a regular pay scale independent of the availability of a sanctioned post?
No, the grant of a regular pay scale must be linked to the availability of a post carrying that specific pay scale. (Para 11 )
ORDER
1. Abatement is set aside and delay in filing of the application for substitution is condoned. I.A. No. 47721 of 2018 is allowed and the legal representatives of the deceased Birbal-respondent no. 16 are brought on record.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.01.2017 passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 117/2006 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, has confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.05.2005 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5326/1990.
4. The respondents herein were engaged by the appellant as unskilled labour on daily wages on different dates from 06.04.1980 to 17.05.1980. The appellant passed an office Order dated 18.06.1980, by which the strength of the employees, inclusive of casual labour, was frozen to the number of employees as it stood on 31.05.1980. The decision was taken in view of the financial condition of the appellant and the considerable number of surplus staff with it. It was also decided that until further orders, no addition was to be made to the strength of the employees as it stood on 31.05.1980. The respondents were declared work charged employees between the period 06.01.1981 to 16.03.1981. According to the respondents, they have completed two years of service after 31.03.1982.
5. On 15.10.1987, the appellant issued Office Order in respect of employees who had completed two years of continuous service as on 31.03.1982, who could not be considered earlier. On 15.01.1988, the appellant issued an Office Order by which the earlier Screening Committee formed vide Order dated 26.09.1983 was authorized to screen the work charged/casual-monthly or daily rated workmen, who have completed two years of service as on 31.03.1983, or thereafter to adjudge suitability for regularization and grant of regular pay-scale. The appellant vide an Office Order dated 02.03.1989 partially modified the earlier Office Order dated 15.01.1988 and the Screening Committee was reconstituted to screen and adjudge the suitability of the work charged/casual-monthly or daily rated workmen who have completed two years continuous service as on 31.03.1983 for regularization and grant of regular pay scale.
6. The respondents herein vide Office Order dated 29.06.1989, were regularized and allowed regular pay scale with effect from 01.04.1989 as per the recommendation of the Screening Committee, the relevant portion of which is as under:
"In terms of Board's order No. RSEB/S.3/F.3(525-II)D.1009 dt. 2.3.89, vide which the Screening Committee constituted by the Board and meeting of the Committee was convened on 28.3.89 to Screen the Work charged/Casual-monthly, daily rated workers who have completed 2 years of continuous service as on 31st March, 1983 or thereafter and are continuing in Board's service to adjudge their suitability for regularization and grant of regular pay scale. The Committee has adjudged suitable of the following workers for allowing regular pay scale No.1. Accordingly, the following workers are hereby allowed Board's pay scale No.1 w.e.f. 1.4.89 and post mentioned against each of their name with immediate effect. The regular salary will be paid by the concerned Assistant Engineer where the workers will be posted by the Executive Engineer (O&M) RSEB, Neemkathana."
7. The respondents filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5326 of 1990 before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench against the Order dated 29.06.1989, passed by the appellant, seeking regular pay scale with effect from 01.04.1983 instead of 01.04.1989 by contending that they should be brought at par with those employees who had been fixed at the regular pay scale vide Order dated 15.10.1987 instead of 01.04.1989. The High Court by its Order dated 06.05.2005 allowed the Writ Petition which has been confirmed by the Division Bench.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. It is the settled position that the date from
