1997 JTR(SC) 436
1997 AIR(SC) 2129 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 1980 ; 1997 3 AWC 1492 ; 1997 76 FLR 305 ; 1997 4 JT 82 ; 1997 LIC 2096 ; 1998 2 LLJ 516 ; 1997 1 LLN 1027 ; 1997 1 RLW(Raj) 162 ; 1997 3 Scale 108 ; 1997 3 SCC 633 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 844 ; 1997 1 SCJ 601 ; 1997 2 SCR 917 ; 1997 2 SCT 553 ; 1997 2 SLJ 203 ; 1997 2 SLR 40 ; 1997 KHC 798 ; 1997 3 Supreme 406
1997(3) Supreme 406
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
State of Haryana -Appellant
versus
Surinder Kumar & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1969-70 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 15622-23 of 1996)
Decided on 10-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Prem Malhotra and Jasbir Malik, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Manoj Swarup, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
A person appointed on contract basis on daily wages can not have any right to a post as such until he is duly selected and appointed.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.16, Art.14, Art.32, Art.39(d), Art.226, Art.136
(A) The referenced constitutional provisions operate within a framework governing lawful appointment and equal remuneration for state employees. Article 14 mandates equality before the law and prohibits arbitrary discrimination, thereby forming the basis for the principle of equal pay for equal work. Article 16 ensures equality of opportunity in public employment, while Article 32 provides the right to constitutional remedies for enforcement. Article 39(d) specifically directs the state to secure equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Article 226 empowers the High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of rights, and Article 136 grants the Supreme Court discretionary power to grant special leave petitions against judgments or orders, thereby enabling the restoration of appeals when substantial questions of law are involved. Collectively, these provisions were invoked to challenge the irregular appointment of daily wage employees and to enforce their right to regularization and parity in compensation.
(B) Key legal principles include the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, the necessity of recruitment in accordance with statutory rules, the prohibition of illegal appointments, and the hierarchical limitations on judicial intervention in administrative discipline. The Court emphasized that rights to a post arise only from valid selection and appointment, and that post interchanges do not confer legal entitlement. It also underscored that regularization cannot legitimize prior illegal actions, which must be addressed by the appropriate authority through disciplinary measures.
Facts of the case:
The respondents were appointed as daily wagers on a contract basis to the post of Clerk. They filed writ petitions in the High Court seeking their regularisation, which resulted in orders directing payment of wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work and regularisation of their services. These appeals by special leave challenge the High Court's orders.
Findings of Court:
The Court noted that the controversy was no longer res judicata, citing guidelines for appointment and regularisation of class IV employees. While directing the appellant to consider the cases in accordance with law, it held that mere post interchanges and informal arrangements do not create a right to equal pay. The respondents were not appointed through proper recruitment, and illegal actions by officers must be rectified by the appropriate authority, not validated by this Court.
Issues:
Whether daily wage employees appointed irregularly can claim automatic regularisation and equal pay; whether post interchanges create legal entitlement; and the extent of judicial authority to regularise appointments contrary to statutory rules.
Ratio Decidendi:
The core judicial reasoning is that appointments must adhere to statutory recruitment rules, and equal pay arises only from lawful appointment. Irregular appointments cannot be legitimised through equal pay directives, and any rectification of administrative illegality must be handled by the concerned authority, not the Court.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the High Court orders are set aside, and the appellant is directed to consider the respondents' cases afresh in accordance with law and recruitment guidelines, with no costs awarded.
(A) The referenced constitutional provisions operate within a framework governing lawful appointment and equal remuneration for state employees. Article 14 mandates equality before the law and prohibits arbitrary discrimination, thereby forming the basis for the principle of equal pay for equal work. Article 16 ensures equality of opportunity in public employment, while Article 32 provides the right to constitutional remedies for enforcement. Article 39(d) specifically directs the state to secure equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Article 226 empowers the High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of rights, and Article 136 grants the Supreme Court discretionary power to grant special leave petitions against judgments or orders, thereby enabling the restoration of appeals when substantial questions of law are involved. Collectively, these provisions were invoked to challenge the irregular appointment of daily wage employees and to enforce their right to regularization and parity in compensation.
(B) Key legal principles include the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, the necessity of recruitment in accordance with statutory rules, the prohibition of illegal appointments, and the hierarchical limitations on judicial intervention in administrative discipline. The Court emphasized that rights to a post arise only from valid selection and appointment, and that post interchanges do not confer legal entitlement. It also underscored that regularization cannot legitimize prior illegal actions, which must be addressed by the appropriate authority through disciplinary measures.
Facts of the case:
The respondents were appointed as daily wagers on a contract basis to the post of Clerk. They filed writ petitions in the High Court seeking their regularisation, which resulted in orders directing payment of wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work and regularisation of their services. These appeals by special leave challenge the High Court's orders.
Findings of Court:
The Court noted that the controversy was no longer res judicata, citing guidelines for appointment and regularisation of class IV employees. While directing the appellant to consider the cases in accordance with law, it held that mere post interchanges and informal arrangements do not create a right to equal pay. The respondents were not appointed through proper recruitment, and illegal actions by officers must be rectified by the appropriate authority, not validated by this Court.
Issues:
Whether daily wage employees appointed irregularly can claim automatic regularisation and equal pay; whether post interchanges create legal entitlement; and the extent of judicial authority to regularise appointments contrary to statutory rules.
Ratio Decidendi:
The core judicial reasoning is that appointments must adhere to statutory recruitment rules, and equal pay arises only from lawful appointment. Irregular appointments cannot be legitimised through equal pay directives, and any rectification of administrative illegality must be handled by the concerned authority, not the Court.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the High Court orders are set aside, and the appellant is directed to consider the respondents' cases afresh in accordance with law and recruitment guidelines, with no costs awarded.
ORDER
Order dated 2.8.1996 is recalled. Special Leave Petitions are restored.
2. Leave granted. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, dated November 23, 1995 and July 28, 1995 in C.W.P. Nos. 15828/95 and 1479/95 respectively.
3. The admitted position is that the respondents came to be appointed as daily wagers on contract basis to the post of Clerk. They filed writ petition in the High Court for their regularisation. The High Court in the impugned order has directed payment of wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work and also regularisation of their services. Thus these appeals, by special leave.
4. The controversy is no longer res judicata. This Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh1, has laid down the guidelines for appointment by recruitment and if need by regularisation of class IV employees. As a consequence, any appointment made to the service shall be in accordance with the statutory rules and also the guidelines laid down thereunder. Therefore, the appellant is directed to consider their cases in accordance with law and guidelines laid down therein for appointment of the respondents to the service as per law provided they are otherwise eligible. If they have become age-barred, age may be relaxed for the period they have worked. On appointment, from that date they will be entitled to equal pay on par with the regular clerks.
5. Shri Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the respondents, contends that the posts held by the respondents are interchangeable and in fact they have been interchanged to enable them to hold the posts. The contention cannot be given acceptance for the reason that since the respondents were appointed on contract basis on daily wages, they cannot have any right to a post an such until they are duly selected and appointed. Merely because they are able to manage to have the posts interchanged, they cannot become entitled to the same pay-scale which the regular clerks are holding by claiming that they are discharging their duties as regular employees. The very object of selection is to test the eligibility and then to make selection in accordance with rules prescribed for recruitment. Obviously the respondents recruitment was not made in accordance with the rules. This Court has also pointed out in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Jasmer Singh & Ors2, in that behalf. If any illegal actions have been taken by the officers after recruitment, it would be a grave matter of indiscipline by the officers and the higher authorities are directed to look into the matter and see that such actions are rectified, but that would not be a matter for this Court to give legitimacy to illegal acts done by the officers and to grant relief on the basis of wrong or illegal actions of superior officers. The appropriate authority would look into and take suitable disciplinary action against the erring officers and submit the report of the action taken and the result thereof to the Registry of this Court.
6. The appeal are accordingly allowed and the orders of the High Court stand set aside, but the directions that would be followed are as indicated in the judgment. It is needless to mention that they would take expeditious action in following the directions. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
********
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar & Ors., 1997(3) Supreme 406 : JT 1997(4) SC 82
00030