2000 JTR(SC) 902
2000 AIR(SC) 3522 ; 2000 AIR(SCW) 3186 ; 2000 3 AWC 2469 ; 2000 7 JT 473 ; 2000 LIC 3120 ; 2000 Supp3 LLJ 966 ; 2000 4 LLN 552 ; 2000 9 SCC 416 ; 2001 SCC(L&S) 90 ; 2000 5 SLR 402 ; 2000 8 SLR 471 ; 2000 7 SLT 484 ; 2000 3 UPLBEC 1932 ; 2000 KHC 1845 ; 2000 6 Supreme 43702
2000(6) Supreme 437
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Rajendra Babu & S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Debika Guha & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3080 of 2000
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12309/1997)
Decided on 28-4-2000
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136, Art.226
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The relevant statutory provisions include the Constitution of India, Article 136 and Article 226, which empower the Supreme Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdictional control over administrative and quasi-judicial decisions, including the authority to interfere where the tribunal has proceeded on an incorrect legal principle. The Service Law framework, particularly the rules governing departmental employees and substitutes, interacts with these constitutional powers when determining the legitimacy of claims for regularisation based on continuous service. The Central Administrative Tribunal, acting under these constitutional and statutory provisions, must align its orders with the settled jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.
(B) The core legal principles established are that a substitute Extra Departmental Agent does not have a automatic legal claim to regularisation merely by virtue of serving for 180 days in a calendar year, and that the determination of whether such individuals should be absorbed rests exclusively with the department if they have served for a long period continuously. The tribunal cannot correctly direct the department to absorb employees based on a perceived legal entitlement where none exists.
Facts of the case:
The dispute involves Substitute Extra Departmental Agents of the Postal Department who have worked for 180 days or more in one calendar year continuously. An order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, directed the appellants to determine the period of continuous work, neglecting short artificial breaks, and absorb the respondents in future vacancies if the period exceeded 180 days.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the claim of the substitutes is not ordinarily entertainable and that the Tribunal's approach was incorrect in light of the earlier decision of the Court. The Court held that it is for the department to consider whether the continuous service of the respondents warrants absorption.
Issues:
The primary issue is whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was correct in directing the appellants to regularise the respondents based on 180 days of continuous service and to frame guidelines for such absorption.
Ratio Decidendi:
The ratio decidendi is that there is no legal claim for regularisation based on a statutory or contractual right to be absorbed after 180 days of continuous service; the matter is left to the discretion of the department, and the tribunal cannot issue a binding directive in this regard.
Result:
The appeal is allowed and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside.
(A) The relevant statutory provisions include the Constitution of India, Article 136 and Article 226, which empower the Supreme Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdictional control over administrative and quasi-judicial decisions, including the authority to interfere where the tribunal has proceeded on an incorrect legal principle. The Service Law framework, particularly the rules governing departmental employees and substitutes, interacts with these constitutional powers when determining the legitimacy of claims for regularisation based on continuous service. The Central Administrative Tribunal, acting under these constitutional and statutory provisions, must align its orders with the settled jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.
(B) The core legal principles established are that a substitute Extra Departmental Agent does not have a automatic legal claim to regularisation merely by virtue of serving for 180 days in a calendar year, and that the determination of whether such individuals should be absorbed rests exclusively with the department if they have served for a long period continuously. The tribunal cannot correctly direct the department to absorb employees based on a perceived legal entitlement where none exists.
Facts of the case:
The dispute involves Substitute Extra Departmental Agents of the Postal Department who have worked for 180 days or more in one calendar year continuously. An order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, directed the appellants to determine the period of continuous work, neglecting short artificial breaks, and absorb the respondents in future vacancies if the period exceeded 180 days.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the claim of the substitutes is not ordinarily entertainable and that the Tribunal's approach was incorrect in light of the earlier decision of the Court. The Court held that it is for the department to consider whether the continuous service of the respondents warrants absorption.
Issues:
The primary issue is whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was correct in directing the appellants to regularise the respondents based on 180 days of continuous service and to frame guidelines for such absorption.
Ratio Decidendi:
The ratio decidendi is that there is no legal claim for regularisation based on a statutory or contractual right to be absorbed after 180 days of continuous service; the matter is left to the discretion of the department, and the tribunal cannot issue a binding directive in this regard.
Result:
The appeal is allowed and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. The grievance before us in this appeal is in relation to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench holding that substitute Extra Departmental Agents of the Postal Department who have worked for 180 days or more in one calendar year continuously can claim to be regularised. The Tribunal gave a further direction that the Appellants should determine on the basis of available records the period for which the Respondents have worked continuously and if such period in any calendar year exceeds 180 days, neglecting short artificial breaks, should absorb them in future vacancies, provided they satisfy the eligibility conditions. When similar matters came up before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1624 of 1986 and connected matters, this Court held that the claim on behalf of substitutes ordinarily is not entertainable but made it clear that, however, if they have worked for long periods continuously, their cases could be appropriately considered by the department for absorption. When this Court has already decided that there cannot be a legal claim on the basis that they have worked for 180 days continuously, it may not be necessary for us to consider that aspect of the matter. Indeed, if it is shown that they have worked for long periods continuously, it will be for the department to consider the same whether that was a proper case for absorption or not and pass appropriate orders. Thus, we think the whole approach of the Tribunal is in-correct in the light of the decision of this Court. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. However, it is open to the Appellants to examine the case of the Respondents, if they have worked for long period, to absorb them, as the case may be. The appeal is allowed.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed.
**************