1996 JTR(SC) 18
1997 AIR(SC) 1445 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 112 ; 1996 72 FLR 668 ; 1996 1 JT 220 ; 1996 1 LLJ 1248 ; 1996 1 Scale 25301 ; 1998 SCC(L&S) 478 ; 1996 1 SCR 54 ; 1996 1 SLR 648 ; 1996 1 SLR 64802 ; 1997 1 UJ 226 ; 1997 KHC 1609 ; 1996 1 Supreme 35802
1996(1) Supreme 358
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy & G. B. Pattanaik, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh -Appellant
versus
Nodha Ram & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1539 of 1996
Decided on 3-1-1996
IMPORTANT POINT
When the project is closed, the daily wage temporary employees have to go with its closure and the High Court cannot give the direction to regularise them or to continue them in other places.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226, Art.136
A) Relevant laws and sections are not explicitly cited in the judgment.
B) No vested right is created in temporary employment; directions cannot be issued to regularize services or create posts in non-existent establishments; courts must adopt a pragmatic approach.
Facts of the case:
Respondents were engaged on daily wages under a Central Scheme and paid from Central Government funds. After the scheme closed, their services were dispensed with. They filed a writ petition in the High Court, which issued an interim direction on November 18, 1992 for re-engagement elsewhere. This appeal by special leave challenges that direction.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was not right to direct regularization or continuation in other places. Directions creating posts or continuing employment despite non-availability of work and funds are illegal. The pragmatic approach requires that directions not amount to creating posts where none exist.
Issues:
Whether interim directions for regularization and re-engagement of temporary employees are permissible when the scheme is closed and funds are exhausted.
Ratio Decidendi:
Temporary employment creates no vested right; courts cannot issue directions that amount to creating or continuing posts in the absence of vacancies or funds, as this exceeds judicial authority and substitutes executive.
Result:
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; no costs.
A) Relevant laws and sections are not explicitly cited in the judgment.
B) No vested right is created in temporary employment; directions cannot be issued to regularize services or create posts in non-existent establishments; courts must adopt a pragmatic approach.
Facts of the case:
Respondents were engaged on daily wages under a Central Scheme and paid from Central Government funds. After the scheme closed, their services were dispensed with. They filed a writ petition in the High Court, which issued an interim direction on November 18, 1992 for re-engagement elsewhere. This appeal by special leave challenges that direction.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was not right to direct regularization or continuation in other places. Directions creating posts or continuing employment despite non-availability of work and funds are illegal. The pragmatic approach requires that directions not amount to creating posts where none exist.
Issues:
Whether interim directions for regularization and re-engagement of temporary employees are permissible when the scheme is closed and funds are exhausted.
Ratio Decidendi:
Temporary employment creates no vested right; courts cannot issue directions that amount to creating or continuing posts in the absence of vacancies or funds, as this exceeds judicial authority and substitutes executive.
Result:
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; no costs.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Heard Counsel on both sides.
3. The facts are that the respondents were engaged on daily wages on muster roll basis in Central Scheme and were paid out of the funds provided by the Central Government. It is stated that after the Scheme was closed their services were dispensed with. When the respondents filed the writ petition in the High Court, the High Court gave interim direction on November 18, 1992 and directed their re-engagement elsewhere. Against the aforesaid interim direction, this appeal by special leave has been filed.
4. It is seen that when the project is completed and closed due to non-availability of funds, the employees have to go along with its closure. The High Court was not right in giving the direction to regularise them or to continue them in other places. No vested right is created in temporary employment. Directions cannot be given to regularise their services in the absence of any existing vacancies nor can directions be given to the State to create posts in a non-existent establishment. The Court would adopt pragmatic approach in giving directions. The directions would amount to creating of posts and continuing them despite non-availability of the work. We are of the considered view that the directions issued by the High Court are absolutely illegal warranting our interference. The order of the High Court is, therefore, set aside.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
*******