Satya Prakash & Ors. versus State of Bihar & Ors.

¶1

[2010] 3 S.C.R. 450

¶2

A

¶3

SATYA PRAKASH & ORS.

¶4

. v. '$TATE OF BIHAR & ORS. (Ciyil Appeal No. 2440 of 2010)

¶5

B

¶6

MARCH 16, 2010

¶7

[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.]

¶8

Labour Law - Daily wage workers - Over 10 years service - Claim for regularization on the basis of judgment in *Uma C Devi's case - Held: Since the workers not appointed on any sanctioned post, not entitled to benefit of regularization - *Uma Devi's case explained and distinguished.

¶9

The appellants, who had worked for more than 10 years on daily rated basis in Bihar Intermediate Education D Council, filed writ petition before the High Court seeking regularization of their services. Single Judge of High Court directed the Council to consider the claim for regularization. Since there was no positive direction for regularization, appellants filed writ appeal, which came to E be dismissed in limine.

¶10

In appeal to this court appellants contended that in Para 53 of the judgment in *State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and Ors. 2006 (4) sec 1, the employees who had worked for 10 years or more were directed to be F regularized as one time measure and the same relief should be extended to the appellants.

¶11

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

¶12

HELD: 1.1. The appellants are not entitled to get the G benefit of regularization of their services since they were never appointed in any sanctioned posts. Appellants were only engaged on daily wages. In Umadevi's case supreme Court held that the courts are not expected to issue any direction for absorption/regularization or H 450

¶13

SATYA PRAKASH & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & 451 ORS.

¶14

permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, A daily-wage or ad hoc employees. Such directions issued could not be said to be in consistence with the constitutional scheme of public employment. The Court held that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the B term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. In view C of the law laid down by this Court, the directions sought for by the appellants cannot be granted. Paragraph 53 of the Umadevi's judgment deals with irregular appointments (not illegal appointments). [Paras 6 and 7] [455-G; 455-C- · F]

A

B

D

1.2. In Uma Devi's case the constitution bench has . already drawn a distin(ftion between temporary employees, daily-wagers and those who were appointed irregularly in the sense that there was non-compliance of some procedure in the selection process which did not go to the root of the selection process. Appellants will not fall in the category of the ~mployees mentioned in paragraph 53 read with paras' 15 and 16 of the Judgment in Uma Devi's case. Appellants' own case is that they were only engaged on daily wages basis and never appointed in service either on a temporary basis or on ad-hoc basis. [Paras 9 and 13] [457-D-E; 459-C-D]

¶19

E

¶20

F

¶21

State of Kamataka vs. Uma Devi and Ors. 2006 (4) -'3CC 1, explained and distinguished.

¶22

S. V, Narayanappa vs. State of Mysore (1967) 1 SCR G 128; B.N. Nanjudappa vs. T. Thimmiah (1972)1 SCC 409, relied on.

¶23

Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh and Ors, (2007) 2 SCC 491; State of Punjab v.

¶24

H

¶25

452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.

¶26

A Bahadur Singh and Ors. (2008) 15 SCC 737; C. Balachandran and Ors. v. State·of Kera/a and Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 179; State of Kamataka and Ors. v. G. V. Chandrashekar (2009) 4 sec 342, referred to.

¶27

Appellants stated that they had undergone a B selection process held fourteen years back, following an advertisement published in the year 1995 but the merit list was neither prepared nor published. Selection process, though undertaken by the Council was not completed and now the Council is no more in existence. However, C if the Board proposes to undertake any regular selection process to fill up the pqsts, the applications, if any, submitted by the appellants may also be considered after giving them age relaxation. [Para 14) [459-D-F]

¶28

D State of Kamataka vs. Uma Devi and Ors. 2006 (4) SCC 1, referred to.

¶29

Case Law Reference:

¶30

	(2007) 2sec491	Referred to.	Para2
E	(2oos) 15sec737	Referred to.	Para2
	(2009) 3sec119	Referred to.	Para2
	(2009) 4sec342	Referred to.	Para2
F	2006 (4)sec1	Explained and Distinguished.	Paras6and7
		Referred to.	Para14
	(1967/ 1SCR128	Relied on.	Para7
G	(1972) 1sec409	Relied on.	Para7

¶31

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2440 of 2010.

¶32

From the Judgment & Order dated 23.9.2008 of the High

¶33

H

¶34

'

¶35

SATYA PRAKASH & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & 453 ORS.

¶36

Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 563 of 2008.

¶37

A

¶38

KV. Vishwanathan, Manoj Pandey, Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellants.

¶39

Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar for the Respondents.

¶40

B

¶41

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶42

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

¶43

Appellants who had worked on daily wages for over ten years liave approached this Court claiming benefit of C paragraph 53 of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Secretary, State of Kamataka And Others v. Umadevi (3) And Others (2006) 4 SCC 1. Some doubts were there with regard to the meaning and content of paragraph 53 read with paragraphs 15, 16 and paragraph 8 read with paragraph 55 of the judgment in Umadevi's case (supra) which has been D subsequently explained by this Court in several judgments. Reference may be made to the judgment of this court in Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh And Others (2007) 2 SCC 491, State of Punjab v. Bahadur Singh And Others (2008) 15 SCC 737, C. Balachandran And Others E v. State of Kera/a And Others (2009) 3 SCC 179, State of Kamataka And Others v. G. V. Chandrashekar, (2009) 4 SCC 342, etc. Almost identical situation arises for consideration in this case as well.

D

E

F

The appellants who had worked for more than 10 years on daily rated basis in the Bihar Intermediate Education Council has approached the Patna High tourt for regularization of their services and a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court directed the Council to consi~er their request for regularization treating them as a separate class after relaxing their age. Since no positive direction was given to the Council for regularization of their services, an appeal was preferred before the Division Bench of the Patna High Court. The Division Bench held that merely because they had worked as daily waged employees with the Council would not confer any right for regularization as

¶48

G

¶49

H

¶50

454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶51

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

¶52

A no public appointment was permissible de hors the recruitment rules. Letters Patent Appeal was, therefore, dismissed in limine. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been preferred with a petition for special leave to appeal.

¶53

Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the 8 appellants submitted that the appellants belong to the reserved community and that they had worked on daily wage basis in sanctioned posts from February/July, 1995 to February, 2005 and that too not on the strength of any order passed by the Court or Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that the appellants C are entitled to get the benefit of the judgment in Umadevi's Case(3) (supra). Reference was made to paragraph 53 of the aforesaid judgment and submitted that this Court had directed the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities to take steps to regularize as a one-time D measure, the services of irregularly appointed persons who had worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts. Learned counsel submitted that the same benefit be extended to persons who had worked on daily wage basis for over 10 years.

¶54

E

¶55

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 submitted that the Council had engaged the appellants only on daily wage basis and they were never appointed in any sanctioned posts and, therefore, they would riot get the benefit of the directions contained in Umadevi's case (supra) which F are applicable only to those qualified employees who were appointed irregularly in sanctioned posts. Learned counsel submitted that the Council in the year 1995 had decided to fill up the posts of AssistanURoutine Clerk and 'Peon on regular basis and an advertisement to that effect was published on G 25.2.1995. Appellants and several other persons applied but no panel or merit list was prepared by the Council. Accordingly, no appointments were effected. Council, though took a decision on 16.12.1999 to complete the selection process including preparation of merit list by 15.01.2000, it did not materialize H due to the creation of new State of Jharkhand by the Bihar Re-

¶56

•

¶57

SATYA PRAKASH & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & 455 ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

¶58

organisation Act, 2000. Further, the Bihar Education Council itself was dissolved by the Biihar Intermediate Education Council (Repeal) Act of 2007 and hence there was no question of regularization of any employee in the Council. The functions of the erstwhile Intermediate Council are now being performed by the Bihar School Examination Board which is following its own recruitment rules. Under such circumstances, it was stated that the directions sought for by the appellants for regularization of their services in the Council cannot be granted.

¶59

A

¶60

B

¶61

We are of the view that the appellants are not entitled . to get the benefit of regularization of their services since they C were never appointed in any sanctioned posts. Appellants were only engaged on daily wages in the Bihar Intermediate Education Council. In Umadevi's case (supra) this Court held that the Courts are not expected to issue any direction for absorption/regularization or permanent continuance of D temporary, contractual, casual, -daily-wage or ad hoc employees. This Court held that such directions issued could not be said to be in consistent with the constitutional scheme of public employment. This Court held that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for E a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. In view of the law F laid down by this Court, the directions sought for by the appellants cannot be granted.

¶62

F

¶63

Paragraph 53 of Umadevi's Judgment, deals with irregular appointments (not illegal appointments). Constitution Bench specifically referred to the judgment in S. V. Narayanappa vs. State of Mysore (1967) 1 SCR 128, B.N. Nanjudappa vs. T. Thimmiah (1972)1 SCC 409, in paragraph 15 of Umadevi's judgment as well.

¶64

G

¶65

Let us refer to paragraphs 15 and 16 of Umadevi's

¶66

H

¶67

456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶68

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

¶69

A judgment in this context. Necessity of keeping in mind the distinction between regularization and conferment of permanence in service jurisprudence has also been highlighted by this·Court by referring to the following passages from R.N. Nanjundappa's case, which reads as follows:-

¶70

B " If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or. if it ·is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution illegality cannot be regularized. Ratification or regularization is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority but there has been c some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularization cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment."

¶71

Further Constitution Bench referred to in B.N. Nagarajan's case in para 16 of the judgment and stated as follows:0

¶72

" We have, therefore, to keep this distinctipn in mind and

¶73

,proceed on the basis that only something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of tf)e elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the

¶74

E process, can be regularized and that it alone can be regularized and granting permanence of employment is a totally different concept and cannot be equated with regularization."

¶75

Then, in Umadevi's case in paragraph 53 the Court is ,

¶76

F stated as follows:-

¶77

" One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases . where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S. V. Narayanappa R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above of duly

¶78

G qualified persons in duly ,sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees h?ve continued to work for ten yeas or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have

¶79

H

¶80

SATYA PRAKASH & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & 457 ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

¶81

to be considered on merits in the light of the principles, A settled by this Court in cases above-referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Uniori of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten B years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover or orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases wh.ere temporary employees or daily wagers are c being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date."

¶82

Constitution Bench has, therefore, clearly drawn a distinction between temporary employees, daily-wagers. and those who were appointed irregularly in the sense that there was non-compliance of some procedure in the selection process which did not go to the root of the selection process. Appellants in our view will not fall in the category of the employees mentioned in paragraph 53 read with paras 15 and 16 of the Constitution Bench Judgment.

¶83

D

¶84

E

¶85

Above view is further reinforced when we. read paragraphs 8 and 55 in Umadevi's case, wherein similar arguments were raised but rejected by the Constitution Bench. Paragraphs 8 of the Constitution Bench judgment refers to CA No.3595-612 of 1999 filed by the Commercial Taxes Department. Respondents therein were engaged on daily wages in some of the districts in the State of Karnataka and they claimed that they had worked in that department for more ~ than 10 years, hence, claimed regularization. They approached· the Tribunal without success. They took up the matter before the High Court of Karnataka. The Karnataka High Court ordered that they are entitled to wages and allowances equal to regµlar employees and also gave a direction to the State Government to consider thefr case for regularization within four months.

F

G

H

·"

458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ' .

¶91

[2010] 3 f1.C.R.

¶92

A 11. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Karnataka High Court the Commercial Taxes Department approached this Court. Allowing the appeal preferred by the Commercial Taxes Department, this Court set aside the directions given by the ·High Court for regularization of services of those daily wage .. B employees who hactmore than 10 years of service. The Court held as follows:-

¶93

" We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages equal-Jo the salary that is being paid to regular employees

¶94

c be paid to these daily wage emptoyees with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, t11at part of the direction

¶95

·of the Division Bench is modified anc:\ it is directed that · these daily-wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in

¶96

D the Commercial Taxes Departmer:it in Government service, .. from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they.are only daily wage earners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our conclusion, that the Courts are not

E

F

G

H

. expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the direction of the High Court directing the Government to

¶102

consider their cases for regularization. We also notice that t~ High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to ' whether it was regularization or it was giving permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State w.ould stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant(they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when reguiar recruitment is undertaken, the respondents- in Civil Appeal No. 3595-612 and those in Commercial Tax Departments similarly situated will be allowed to compete, waiving .the age restriction imposed for the recruitment .' . .

¶103

SATYA PRAKASH & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & 459 ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

¶104

and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time.

¶105

A

¶106

In our view, the appellants herein would fall under the category of persons mentioned in paragraphs 8 and 55 of the judgment and not in paragraph 53 of judgment of Umadevi's.

¶107

B

¶108

. 13. Appellants in their reply affidavit filed on 14.10.2004 before the High Court has specifically stated in paragraph 5 that they were only engaged as Assistant Routine Clerks and Peons on daily wages. Further in paragraph 20 of the affidavit it was stated that they were discharging their duties on daily c wages basis since 1995 and had entertained a legitimate expectation for regularization of their services. Appellants' own case is that they were only engaged on daily wages basis and never appointed in service either on a temporary basis or on ad-hoc basis. -

¶109

D

¶110

Appellants stated th~t they had uridergone a_ selection process held fourteen years back, following an advertisement published in the year 1995 but the merit list was neither prepared nor published. Selection process, though undertaken by the Council was not completed and now the Council is no more in existence. However, if Board proposes to undertake any regular selection process to fill up the posts, the· applications, if any, submitted by the appellants may also be considered after giving age relaxation. In Umadevi's case iri paragraph 55 of the judgment, the Constitution Bench has also permitted such persons to participate in selection process waiving the age relaxation and giving the weightage for having been engaged or worked in the department for a significant period of time.

¶111

E

¶112

F

¶113