Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Regularization is not granted solely based on length of service; it is contingent upon the nature of appointment and the existence of sanctioned posts ["M.P. KANTH Vs INDIAN COUNCIL OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH & ORS. - Delhi"], ["Kishori Ram, S/o. Late Goga Ram vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], ["Arabinda Acharya vs State of Odisha - Orissa"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["M.P. KANTH Vs INDIAN COUNCIL OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH & ORS. - Delhi"]- ["D.Noble Raj vs Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras"]- ["GAURAV UPADHYAY vs UNION OF INDIA - Uttarakhand"]- ["Pintoo Kumar vs Union of India - Delhi"]- ["Kishori Ram, S/o. Late Goga Ram vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"]- ["Ananta Das, Son of Late Baliram Das VS Union of India - Gauhati"]- ["Arabinda Acharya vs State of Odisha - Orissa"]- ["R. L. SRIVASTAVA VS SAM HIGINBOTTOM INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE - Allahabad"]
In the realm of public employment in India, many workers are hired on a temporary basis for specific government schemes or projects. A common question arises: Temporary appointment for a scheme or project is co terminus with the said scheme and Person so working has no right to be regularised in the regular service. Is this true? The answer, backed by consistent judicial precedents, is generally yes. Such appointments are designed to be short-term, ending automatically when the scheme or project concludes, without conferring any vested right to permanent absorption.
This blog post delves into the legal principles governing these appointments, drawing from Supreme Court and High Court judgments. We'll explore why long service doesn't guarantee regularization, key exceptions, and practical recommendations. Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Courts in India have repeatedly held that a temporary appointment made specifically for a scheme or project, which is co-terminus with that scheme or project, does not confer a legal right to regularization in permanent service. These roles are inherently temporary, and employment terminates automatically upon the scheme's end, absent any statutory or contractual provisions to the contrary. ITI Limited through its Sultana Ram Chairman and Managing Director, Bangalore VS Sultana Ram - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 1151
For instance, the Supreme Court has clarified: The fact that the Scheme had been in operation for some decades or that the employee concerned has continued on ad hoc basis for one or two decades would not entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularization. ITI Limited through its Sultana Ram Chairman and Managing Director, Bangalore VS Sultana Ram - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 1151
Here are the core takeaways from landmark rulings:
These principles ensure that public employment adheres to constitutional mandates under Articles 14 and 16, preventing backdoor entries.
Judgments emphasize that scheme or project roles are not meant for permanence. In one case: Services of the project based employees who are appointed or employed against any particular project, come to an end immediately on completion of the said project unless they are absorbed in any project or scheme by the concerned department. Satish Kumar Porwal VS State of Rajasthan - 1995 0 Supreme(Raj) 185
This is echoed in other sources, such as: If the temporary or ad-hoc engagement or appointment is in connection with a particular project or a specific scheme, the ad hoc or temporary service of the persons employed under the Project or Scheme would come to an end, on completion/closure/cessation of the Project or the Scheme. Gaurav Upadhyay VS Union of India through Additional Secretary, Technical Education - 2024 Supreme(UK) 104Hakeem Aabid Mubarak VS J & K Bank - 2020 Supreme(J&K) 290
Even extensions of schemes don't change this: Appointment against some scheme or project – Essentially temporary and ad hoc – Scheme or project may be extended from time to time and employees may be continued for decades – That will not make the posts or service permanent – Employees cannot seek regularization. Sidhi Vinayak Sanstha VS State of Rajasthan - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 23
A frequent argument—years of service entitles one to permanence—has been rejected. Where a person was appointed on a purely adhoc basis in a temporary post on year to year basis he could not be directed to be regularised though employment continued for a long time. Kanhiya Lal Nai VS State Of Rajasthan - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 966
Similarly, in a TEQIP project case, the court held: The court found that the petitioner's employment was co-terminus with the TEQIP project, which was set to end, and thus, the petitioner could not claim continuation of service beyond the project's duration. Gaurav Upadhyay VS Union of India through Additional Secretary, Technical Education - 2024 Supreme(UK) 104
Public employment is governed by statutory rules, with no fundamental right to it. Temporary employees can only challenge discrimination or rule violations, not demand regularization. PARVESH SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI V. K. SHARMA VS HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY - 2022 Supreme(HP) 469
Regularization means formalizing irregular appointments per rules, not rewarding long temporary service. Regularisation in service law connotes official formalization of an appointment which was made on a temporary or ad hoc or stop-gap or casual basis or the like in deviation from the normal rules or applicable norms of appointment. Hari Ram Dindor VS State of Rajasthan - 2004 0 Supreme(Raj) 1789
Even court interim orders don't create absorption rights: Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service. ITI Limited through its Sultana Ram Chairman and Managing Director, Bangalore VS Sultana Ram - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 1151
High Courts reinforce this nationwide:
These cases show uniformity: project ends, service ends.
While the rule is strict, limited scenarios may allow consideration:
However, courts stress: No automatic entitlement. D.Noble Raj vs Central Administrative TribunalREGIONAL DIRECTOR NATION ANR vs PRAVEEN KUMAR VYAS AND ANR
Temporary scheme or project appointments in India are generally co-terminus, with no automatic regularization right, regardless of duration. This upholds recruitment fairness and fiscal discipline. Key takeaways:
Landmark cases like those cited provide binding clarity. For personalized guidance, consult legal experts. Stay informed on labor laws to navigate employment securely.
References:- ITI Limited through its Sultana Ram Chairman and Managing Director, Bangalore VS Sultana Ram - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 1151, Satish Kumar Porwal VS State of Rajasthan - 1995 0 Supreme(Raj) 185, Kanhiya Lal Nai VS State Of Rajasthan - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 966, Sidhi Vinayak Sanstha VS State of Rajasthan - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 23, Hari Ram Dindor VS State of Rajasthan - 2004 0 Supreme(Raj) 1789, Gaurav Upadhyay VS Union of India through Additional Secretary, Technical Education - 2024 Supreme(UK) 104, Secretary to Government for Women & Child Welfare Department, Puducherry VS S. Anbu - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 1912, PARVESH SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI V. K. SHARMA VS HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY - 2022 Supreme(HP) 469, Prakash Kanwar VS State Of Rajasthan - 2022 Supreme(Raj) 2326, Dharam Pal Singh VS State of U. P. - 2017 Supreme(All) 1564, Hakeem Aabid Mubarak VS J & K Bank - 2020 Supreme(J&K) 290, Santosh Kumar Panda VS State of Odisha - 2022 Supreme(Ori) 384
#EmploymentLaw #RegularizationRights #LaborLawIndia
Unlike in the said case, Petitioner’s initial appointment on 08.04.1976 was temporary against a project and till its completion. ... After the completion of the project, the co-terminus appointment came to an end and Petitioner was subsequently engaged in a fresh project and therefore it is clear that he continued on co-terminus basis on the strength of temporary projects. ... Petitioner was engaged on a ....
temporary and for the sanctioned period of the project and co-terminus with the project "Setting- p style="position:absolute
or temporary service of persons employed under the project or scheme person is denied of legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do scheme or project run by the appellant and no appointment has been their contractual appointment has been made co-terminus with the connection with a particular project or a specific scheme, the ad hoc p style
If the temporary or ad- hoc engagement or appointment is in connection with a particular project or a specific scheme, the ad hoc or temporary service of the persons employed under the Project or Scheme would come to an end, on completion/closure/cessation ... On completion of the project or discontinuance of the scheme, those who were engaged with reference to or in connection with s....
If the temporary or ad-hoc engagement or appointment is in connection with a particular project or a specific scheme, the ad hoc or temporary service of the persons employed under the Project or Scheme would come to an end, on completion/closure/cessation of the Project or the Scheme. ... On completion of the project or discontinuance of the scheme, those who were engaged with re....
The temporary employees have no right of regularization of their service. ... As per the said Government Order, the temporary employees who have completed ten years of service as on the date of the Government Order can be regularized. ... While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitut....
It also mentioned that the services are liable to be terminated without any notice and/or assigning any reason thereof, and that the person will not have any right to regular/continuous service as a System Officer. 13. ... In Mohd Abdul Kadir Vs DGP, (2009) 6 SCC 611, the Supreme Court observed as under: “15.On completion of the project or discontinuance of the scheme, those who were engaged with reference to or in connection with such project or scheme#HL_E....
He further submits that merely because a temporary employee or a contractual worker continued for a time beyond the terms of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent. ... It is clear that though the appellants may not be entitled to regular appointment as such it cannot be said that they will not be entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale nor that they should not be continued till regular incumben....
His engagement always was co-terminus with the project. ... As per respondents No. 1 to 3, CCS is the permanent scheme, therefore, respondents No. 4 and 5 were regularised under the said scheme on the basis of their experience in the said scheme. The allegation of nepotism was specifically denied. ... Whereas the projects under Agro Centre were temporary in nature, the CCS scheme was permanent. Since the petitioner....
In all these cases, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the casual appointment were granted in respect of a particular scheme or project, the ad-hoc employees working in such scheme have no right to claim regularisation of their services with regular pay scales. ... , (1992) 4 SCC 99 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that regularisation of ad hoc appointees in temporary or time-bound schemes could not be considered. The appoi....
The precedent law as laid down in various Apex Court judgments is very clear that if a contract is co-terminus with the Project or Scheme, and if such Project or Scheme comes to an end, then no right of such contractual employee could be protected.
The said posting is purely temporary and also co-terminus with the scheme. Moreover, as per Order No. 10023 dated 01.07.2014 of CDMO, Ganjam, the service of the petitioner was placed at MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur and he has signed the agreement on 17.07.2014 as per the FIR Manual of the Mission Directorate, NRHM, Health and F.W. Departmentt, Govt. of Odisha and shall not claim permanent job in future and shall perform duties to the utmost satisfaction of the authority. 12. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has submitted that applications were in....
If the temporary or ad hoc engagement or appointment is in connection with a particular project or a specific scheme, the ad hoc or temporary service of the persons employed under the Project or Scheme would come to an end, on completion/closure/cessation of the Project or the Scheme. The fact that the Scheme had been in operation for some decades or that the employee concerned has continued on ad hoc basis for one or two decades would not entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularization. The said scheme is being extended from time to time and is being continued.
It would be relevant to point out that law is well settled that if temporary or ad hoc engagement or appointment is in connection with a particular project or a specific scheme, the ad hoc/temporary service of persons employed under the project or scheme would come to an end on completion/closure/cessation of the project or scheme. Further, if the scheme had been in operation for some decades or that the employee concerned has continued for one or two decades would not entitle the employee to seek permanency. The employment of such matter is coterminous in nature.
Insistence on regularisation in any project or scheme is also impermissible and the existence of the posts would be co-terminus with the Scheme. The Apex Court also has held that issue, as a matter of policy having financial and other implications i.e., issues involving public interest has not engaged the attention of those concerned with the policy and failure to take prompt decision on a pending issue is likely to be detrimental to the public interest. The Court would fail in its duty if they do not draw attention of the authority concerned. As mentioned, while discussing....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
