1996 JTR(SC) 1722
1997 1 CLR 190 ; 1997 75 FLR 70 ; 1996 10 JT 329 ; 1997 2 LLJ 381 ; 1997 4 LLN 528 ; 1997 1 RSJ 398 ; 1996 8 Scale 294 ; 1996 11 SCC 341 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 478 ; 1996 Supp7 SCR 650 ; 1997 1 SCT 451 ; 1997 1 SLR 135 ; 1996 8 Supreme 215
1996(8) Supreme 215
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Bishamber Dutt -Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 14528-530 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14217-19 of 1996)
Decided on 23-10-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Ms. K. Amareshwari, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Anubha Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondent : G.S. Beqrar and N.S. Behl, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment as part time de hors rules does not entitle regularisation of service whatsoever long such part time employee worked.
Act Referred :SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The Service Law governs the terms and conditions of employment for public servants, and where the statutes contemplate appointments only under specific prescribed rules and regular processes, any deviation such as appointment outside the rules does not attract subsequent regularization. The acts referred to in this case, read with the Tribunals findings, indicate that the employees were engaged as part-time employees de hors the rules and were not appointed on a regular basis after following the selection procedures, rendering any direction for regularization inconsistent with the governing statutory framework.
(B) Key legal principles include that employment outside the rules cannot be regularized, adherence to statutory procedure is mandatory for appointments, and long continuance in part-time roles does not equate to entitlement for regular service status.
Facts of the case:
The respondents were appointed as Class IV employees on part-time basis on different dates between 1990 and 1994 in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts, receiving consolidated pay which was revised periodically; they were never appointed on a regular basis after selection according to rules, and directions were issued at the Ministry level and by the Tribunal for their regularization.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal erred in directing regularization of the respondents, as they were not appointed on a regular basis in accordance with rules, and the Ministry of Personnel had correctly taken the position that they were not entitled to temporary status or regularization.
Issues:
Whether part-time employees appointed outside the rules are entitled to regularization after long service, and whether an administrative tribunal can direct regularization in violation of prescribed appointment norms.
Ratio Decidendi:
Appointments not made in accordance with rules cannot be regularized, and directions for regularization by lower authorities are illegal when they conflict with statutory procedures and policy directives.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the impugned orders of the Tribunal are set aside, and no costs are awarded.
(A) The Service Law governs the terms and conditions of employment for public servants, and where the statutes contemplate appointments only under specific prescribed rules and regular processes, any deviation such as appointment outside the rules does not attract subsequent regularization. The acts referred to in this case, read with the Tribunals findings, indicate that the employees were engaged as part-time employees de hors the rules and were not appointed on a regular basis after following the selection procedures, rendering any direction for regularization inconsistent with the governing statutory framework.
(B) Key legal principles include that employment outside the rules cannot be regularized, adherence to statutory procedure is mandatory for appointments, and long continuance in part-time roles does not equate to entitlement for regular service status.
Facts of the case:
The respondents were appointed as Class IV employees on part-time basis on different dates between 1990 and 1994 in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts, receiving consolidated pay which was revised periodically; they were never appointed on a regular basis after selection according to rules, and directions were issued at the Ministry level and by the Tribunal for their regularization.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal erred in directing regularization of the respondents, as they were not appointed on a regular basis in accordance with rules, and the Ministry of Personnel had correctly taken the position that they were not entitled to temporary status or regularization.
Issues:
Whether part-time employees appointed outside the rules are entitled to regularization after long service, and whether an administrative tribunal can direct regularization in violation of prescribed appointment norms.
Ratio Decidendi:
Appointments not made in accordance with rules cannot be regularized, and directions for regularization by lower authorities are illegal when they conflict with statutory procedures and policy directives.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the impugned orders of the Tribunal are set aside, and no costs are awarded.
ORDER
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 that they 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 orders of the Tribunal is set aside. No costs.
Appeals allowed.
*******