Union Of India
v.
Bishamber Dutt
(Supreme Court Of India)
Civil Appeal No. 14528-530 Of 1996 (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14217-19 Of 1996) | 23-10-1996
G.B. Pattanaik, J.
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi.
3. The admitted position is that the respondent along with others came to be appointed on September 3, 1990, November 14, 1991 and September 14, 1994 as Class IV employees in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts on part time basis. There is a controversy as to whether they are appointed on hourly basis or on regular basis. The admitted position is that they were receiving the consolidated pay of Rs. 500/- per month which was raised to Rs. 600/- per month for working six hours a day. It is not necessary to consider the case whether it is full-time or hourly basis or monthly basis. Suffice it to state that they were not appointed to a regular post after selection according to rules; they were appointed as part-time employees de hors the rules. The question therefore, is: whether they are entitled to the temporary status or regularisation as directed by the Tribunal. It is seen that pursuant to the enquiry whether temporary status should be granted to the part-time employees, directions were issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension dated July 12, 1994 in the Memorandum, Clause 3, that they are not entitled to such status. Since they are not appointed on regular basis in accordance with rules the direction issued by the Tribunal to regularise the service is obviously illegal. It is then contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the fact they that were regularly working for a long time they are entitled to regularisation. We do not appreciate the stand taken on behalf of the respondents. Unless they are appointed on regular basis according to rules after consideration of the claims on merits, there is no question of regularisation of the services.
4. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. No costs.
5. Appeals allowed.
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi.
3. The admitted position is that the respondent along with others came to be appointed on September 3, 1990, November 14, 1991 and September 14, 1994 as Class IV employees in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts on part time basis. There is a controversy as to whether they are appointed on hourly basis or on regular basis. The admitted position is that they were receiving the consolidated pay of Rs. 500/- per month which was raised to Rs. 600/- per month for working six hours a day. It is not necessary to consider the case whether it is full-time or hourly basis or monthly basis. Suffice it to state that they were not appointed to a regular post after selection according to rules; they were appointed as part-time employees de hors the rules. The question therefore, is: whether they are entitled to the temporary status or regularisation as directed by the Tribunal. It is seen that pursuant to the enquiry whether temporary status should be granted to the part-time employees, directions were issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension dated July 12, 1994 in the Memorandum, Clause 3, that they are not entitled to such status. Since they are not appointed on regular basis in accordance with rules the direction issued by the Tribunal to regularise the service is obviously illegal. It is then contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the fact they that were regularly working for a long time they are entitled to regularisation. We do not appreciate the stand taken on behalf of the respondents. Unless they are appointed on regular basis according to rules after consideration of the claims on merits, there is no question of regularisation of the services.
4. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. No costs.
5. Appeals allowed.
Advocates List
For the Appellants - Ms. K. Amareshwari, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Anubha Jain, Advocates. For the Respondents - Mr. G.S. Beqrar and Mr. N.S. Behl, Advocates.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMASWAMY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.B. PATTANAIK
Eq Citation
(1996) 11 SCC 341
1997 (1) SCT 451 (SC)
(1997) SCC (LS) 478
1997 (75) FLR 70
1996 8 AD (SC) 680
[1996] (SUPPL.) 7 SCR 650
1996 (8) SCALE 294
JT 1996 (10) SC 329
1997 (1) SLR 135
LQ/SC/1996/1744
HeadNote
Constitution of India — Art. 136 — Service matters — Regularisation of services — Part-time employees appointed de hors rules — Directions issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension that they were not entitled to temporary status — Held, since they were not appointed on regular basis in accordance with rules, direction issued by Tribunal to regularise service was illegal — Unless they were appointed on regular basis according to rules after consideration of claims on merits, there was no question of regularisation of services — Hence, order of Tribunal set aside (Paras 3 and 4)
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.