1996 JTR(SC) 14
1997 AIR(SC) 352 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 111 ; 1996 32 ATC 820 ; 1996 72 FLR 540 ; 1996 1 JT 214 ; 1996 1 LLJ 869 ; 1997 3 LLN 800 ; 1996 1 Scale 237 ; 1996 1 SCC 773 ; 1996 SCC(L&S) 383 ; 1996 1 SCJ 412 ; 1996 1 SCR 56 ; 1996 2 SCT 509 ; 1996 1 SLR 647 ; 1997 KHC 1714 ; 1996 1 Supreme 35801
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : K.Ramaswamy
State Of H.P.
Versus
Ashwani Kumar
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 1/3/96
Advocates Appeared: Dutta B. : Sharma Naresh Kumar : Singh Devendra
Temporary employment on a daily wage basis does not create a vested right to regularization. Courts cannot direct the State to regularize services or create new posts in the absence of existing vacancies or available work.
(A) Although no specific statutory acts or sections were explicitly indexed in the proceedings, the case centers on the interpretation of employment rights for daily wage workers engaged on a muster-roll basis under a central government scheme. The legal analysis focuses on the distinction between temporary, project-based employment and permanent civil service, examining whether the closure of a funded scheme entitles temporary employees to regularization or redeployment under administrative law principles.
(B) Temporary employment does not create a vested right to permanent appointment or regularization. Courts cannot issue directions to create posts or regularize services in the absence of existing vacancies or available funds, as such directions would improperly interfere with the executive's administrative and financial functions.
Facts of the case:
Respondents were engaged as daily wage workers on a muster-roll basis for a central government scheme funded by the central government. Upon the completion and closure of the scheme due to non-availability of funds, their services were terminated. The High Court had previously issued an interim direction and a final order directing the respondents to be re-engaged elsewhere or regularized.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that when a project is closed due to a lack of funds, the employees associated with that project must necessarily be released. The High Court erred in directing the regularization of temporary employees or their transfer to other locations. The Court observed that no vested right to permanent employment is created through temporary engagement and that the judiciary cannot direct the State to create posts for a non-existent establishment.
Issues:
Whether temporary employees engaged on a daily wage basis for a specific project have a vested right to regularization or redeployment upon the closure of said project due to lack of funds.
Ratio Decidendi:
Directions to regularize temporary employees in the absence of existing vacancies or to create new posts constitute an illegal exercise of judicial power and an impractical approach to administrative management. Temporary employment does not confer a legal right to permanent status.
Result:
The appeal was allowed, and the order of the High Court was set aside.
(A) Although no specific statutory acts or sections were explicitly indexed in the proceedings, the case centers on the interpretation of employment rights for daily wage workers engaged on a muster-roll basis under a central government scheme. The legal analysis focuses on the distinction between temporary, project-based employment and permanent civil service, examining whether the closure of a funded scheme entitles temporary employees to regularization or redeployment under administrative law principles.
(B) Temporary employment does not create a vested right to permanent appointment or regularization. Courts cannot issue directions to create posts or regularize services in the absence of existing vacancies or available funds, as such directions would improperly interfere with the executive's administrative and financial functions.
Facts of the case:
Respondents were engaged as daily wage workers on a muster-roll basis for a central government scheme funded by the central government. Upon the completion and closure of the scheme due to non-availability of funds, their services were terminated. The High Court had previously issued an interim direction and a final order directing the respondents to be re-engaged elsewhere or regularized.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that when a project is closed due to a lack of funds, the employees associated with that project must necessarily be released. The High Court erred in directing the regularization of temporary employees or their transfer to other locations. The Court observed that no vested right to permanent employment is created through temporary engagement and that the judiciary cannot direct the State to create posts for a non-existent establishment.
Issues:
Whether temporary employees engaged on a daily wage basis for a specific project have a vested right to regularization or redeployment upon the closure of said project due to lack of funds.
Ratio Decidendi:
Directions to regularize temporary employees in the absence of existing vacancies or to create new posts constitute an illegal exercise of judicial power and an impractical approach to administrative management. Temporary employment does not confer a legal right to permanent status.
Result:
The appeal was allowed, and the order of the High Court was set aside.
(1) 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 dated 6/1/1993 and directed them to be re-engaged elsewhere. Pursuant to the interim direction the writ petition came to be disposed of on 9/3/1993. Thus this appeal by special leave.
(4) IT is seen that when the project is completed and closed due to non- availability of funds, consequently, the employees have to go along with the closed project. 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 create posts by the State to a non-existent establishment. The court would adopt pragmatic approach in giving directions. The directions would amount to creating of posts and continuing them in spite of 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 set aside.
(5) THE appeal is allowed. No costs.