Casual Labour Regularisation – Supreme Court Judgement Applicable to those Appointed later 1993 & 2006 who completed 10 years service
Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Jharkhand
on 1 August 2018
Author: yard B Lokur
REPORTABLEon 1 August 2018
Author: yard B Lokur
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NOS.7423-7429 OF 2018(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 19832-19838 OF 2017)
Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. Etc.
………..Appellants versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Etc.
………..RespondentsThe State of Jharkhand & Ors. Etc.
JUDGMENT
J U D G yard due east due north TMadan B. Lokur, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of the mutual judgment too club dated 17th November, 2016 passed yesteryear a Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand inward a batch of writ petitions relating to the regularisation of daily wage or contract workers on dissimilar posts. The writ petitioners (now appellants) were denied the produce goodness of regularisation inward persuasion of the provisions of the Jharkhand Sarkar ke Adhinasth Aniyamit Rup se Niyukt Ewam Karyarat Karmiyo ki Sewa Niyamitikaran Niyamawali, 2015
(hereinafter referred to equally the Regularisation Rules).
(hereinafter referred to equally the Regularisation Rules).
3. The admitted seat is that the appellants are irregularly appointed employees of the State Government. They sought regularisation of their condition on the dry reason that they had seat inward to a greater extent than than 10 years of service too were thence entitled to last regularised. The High Court took the persuasion that the determination of the Constitution Bench of this Court inward Secretary, State of Karnataka too Ors. v. Umadevi (3) too Ors.1 did non permit their regularisation since they had non worked for 10 years on the cut-off appointment of tenth April, 2006 when the Constitution Bench rendered its decision. According to the High Court, the Regularisation Rules provided a one-time mensurate of regularisation of the services of irregularly appointed employees based on the cut-off appointment of tenth April, 2006 inward price of the judgment of the Constitution Bench. Therefore, since the appellants had non seat inward 10 years of service they could non last regularised.
4. The appellants had contended earlier the High Court that the State of Jharkhand was created solely on 15th November, 2000 too thence no 1 could direct maintain completed 10 years of service amongst the State of Jharkhand on the cut-off appointment of tenth April, 2006. Therefore, no 1 could acquire the produce goodness of the Regularisation Rules which made the entire legislative exercise totally meaningless. The appellants had pointed out inward the High Court that the State had issued Resolutions on 18th July, 2009 too 19th
July, 2009 permitting the regularisation of just about employees of the State, who had apparently non seat inward 10 years of service amongst the State.Consequently, it was submitted that the appellants were discriminated against for no error of theirs too inward an irrational manner.
July, 2009 permitting the regularisation of just about employees of the State, who had apparently non seat inward 10 years of service amongst the State.Consequently, it was submitted that the appellants were discriminated against for no error of theirs too inward an irrational manner.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties too having considered the determination of the Constitution Bench inward Umadevi (3) equally good equally the subsequent determination of this Court explaining Umadevi (3) inward State of Karnataka too Ors. v. M.L. Kesari too Ors.2
, nosotros are of the persuasion that the High Court has erred inward taking an impractical persuasion of the directions inward Umadevi (3) equally good equally its consideration inward Kesari.
, nosotros are of the persuasion that the High Court has erred inward taking an impractical persuasion of the directions inward Umadevi (3) equally good equally its consideration inward Kesari.
6. The determination inward Umadevi (3) was intended to seat a sum halt to the somewhat pernicious practise of irregularly or illegally appointing daily wage workers too continuing amongst them indefinitely. In fact, inward paragraph 49 of the Report, it was pointed out that the dominion of police requires appointments to last made inward a constitutional mode too the State cannot last permitted to perpetuate an irregularity inward the thing of populace occupation which would adversely deport on those who could last employed inward price of the constitutional scheme. It is for this argue that the concept of a one-time mensurate too a cut-off appointment was introduced inward the promise too expectation that the State would cease too desist from making irregular or illegal appointments too instead brand appointments on a regular basis.
7. The concept of a one-time mensurate was farther explained inward Kesari inward paragraphs 9, 10 too xi of the Report which read equally follows:
“9. The term “one-time measure” has to last understood inward its proper perspective. This would commonly hateful that later the
decision inward Umadevi (3), each subdivision or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise too develop a listing of all casual, daily-wage or advertizement hoc employees who direct maintain been working for to a greater extent than than 10 years without the intervention of courts too tribunals too patch of written report them to a procedure verification equally to whether they are working against vacant posts too possess the requisite qualification for the postal service too if so, regularise their services.
10. At the cease of 6 months from the appointment of decision in Umadevi (3), cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees were all the same pending earlier courts. Consequently, several departments too instrumentalities did non commence the one-time regularisation process. On the other hand, just about authorities departments or instrumentalities undertook the onetime exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the dry reason that their cases were pending inward courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to last considered inward price of para 53 of the determination inward Umadevi (3), volition non lose their correct to last considered for regularisation, simply because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the sixmonth period mentioned inward para 53 of Umadevi (3) has expired. The one-time exercise should visit all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had seat inward 10 years of continuous service equally on 10-4-2006 without availing the protection of whatever interim orders of courts or tribunals. If whatever employer had held the one-time exercise inward price of para 53 of Umadevi (3), but did non visit the cases of just about employees who were entitled to the produce goodness of para 53 of Umadevi (3), the employer concerned should visit their cases also, equally a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one-time exercise volition last concluded solely when all the employees who are entitled to last considered inward price of para 53 of Umadevi (3), are so considered.11. The object behind the said management inward para 53 of Umadevi (3) is twofold. First is to ensure that those who direct maintain seat inward morethan 10 years of continuous service without the protection of whatever interim orders of courts or tribunals, earlier the appointment of determination inward Umadevi (3) was rendered, are considered for regularisation inward persuasion of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities produce non perpetuate the practise of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual footing for long periods too and so periodically regularise them on the dry reason that they direct maintain served for to a greater extent than than 10 years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment too appointment. The truthful final result of the management is that all persons who direct maintain worked for to a greater extent than than 10 years equally on 10-4-2006 [the appointment of determination inward Umadevi (3)] without the protection of whatever interim club of whatever courtroom or tribunal, inward vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to last considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has non undertaken such exercise of regularisation inside 6 months of the determination inward Umadevi (3) or that such exercise was undertaken solely inward regard to a express few, volition non disentitle such employees, the correct to last considered for regularisation inward price of the to a higher house directions inward Umadevi (3) equally a one-time measure.”
decision inward Umadevi (3), each subdivision or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise too develop a listing of all casual, daily-wage or advertizement hoc employees who direct maintain been working for to a greater extent than than 10 years without the intervention of courts too tribunals too patch of written report them to a procedure verification equally to whether they are working against vacant posts too possess the requisite qualification for the postal service too if so, regularise their services.
10. At the cease of 6 months from the appointment of decision in Umadevi (3), cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees were all the same pending earlier courts. Consequently, several departments too instrumentalities did non commence the one-time regularisation process. On the other hand, just about authorities departments or instrumentalities undertook the onetime exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the dry reason that their cases were pending inward courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to last considered inward price of para 53 of the determination inward Umadevi (3), volition non lose their correct to last considered for regularisation, simply because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the sixmonth period mentioned inward para 53 of Umadevi (3) has expired. The one-time exercise should visit all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had seat inward 10 years of continuous service equally on 10-4-2006 without availing the protection of whatever interim orders of courts or tribunals. If whatever employer had held the one-time exercise inward price of para 53 of Umadevi (3), but did non visit the cases of just about employees who were entitled to the produce goodness of para 53 of Umadevi (3), the employer concerned should visit their cases also, equally a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one-time exercise volition last concluded solely when all the employees who are entitled to last considered inward price of para 53 of Umadevi (3), are so considered.11. The object behind the said management inward para 53 of Umadevi (3) is twofold. First is to ensure that those who direct maintain seat inward morethan 10 years of continuous service without the protection of whatever interim orders of courts or tribunals, earlier the appointment of determination inward Umadevi (3) was rendered, are considered for regularisation inward persuasion of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities produce non perpetuate the practise of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual footing for long periods too and so periodically regularise them on the dry reason that they direct maintain served for to a greater extent than than 10 years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment too appointment. The truthful final result of the management is that all persons who direct maintain worked for to a greater extent than than 10 years equally on 10-4-2006 [the appointment of determination inward Umadevi (3)] without the protection of whatever interim club of whatever courtroom or tribunal, inward vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to last considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has non undertaken such exercise of regularisation inside 6 months of the determination inward Umadevi (3) or that such exercise was undertaken solely inward regard to a express few, volition non disentitle such employees, the correct to last considered for regularisation inward price of the to a higher house directions inward Umadevi (3) equally a one-time measure.”
8. The role too intent of the determination inward Umadevi (3) was thence two-fold, namely, to foreclose irregular or illegal appointments inward the time to come too secondly, to confer a produce goodness on those who had been irregularly appointed inward the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued amongst the irregular appointments for close a decade later the determination inward Umadevi (3) is a clear indication that it believes that it was alright to locomote out on amongst irregular appointments, too whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the dry reason that they were irregularly appointed. This is cypher but a shape of exploitation of the employees yesteryear non giving them the benefits of regularisation too yesteryear placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is exactly what Umadevi (3) too Kesari sought to avoid.
9. If a strict too literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the determination of the Constitution Bench inward Umadevi (3), is to last taken into consideration too so no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could always last regularised since that State came into beingness solely on 15th November, 2000 too the cut-off appointment was fixed equally tenth April, 2006. In other words, inward this manner, the pernicious practise of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would last perpetuated reverse to the intent of the Constitution Bench.
10. The High Court equally good equally the State of Jharkhand ought to direct maintain considered the entire number inward a contextual perspective too non solely from the betoken of persuasion of the involvement of the State, fiscal or otherwise – the involvement of the employees is also required to last kept inward mind. What has eventually been achieved yesteryear the State of Jharkhand is to short-circuit the procedure of regular appointments too instead brand appointments on an irregular basis. This is hardly practiced governance.
11. Under the circumstances, nosotros are of the persuasion that the Regularisation Rules must last given a pragmatic interpretation too the appellants, if they direct maintain completed 10 years of service on the appointment of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to last given the produce goodness of the service rendered yesteryear them. If they direct maintain completed 10 years of service they should last regularised unless in that location is just about valid objection to their regularisation similar misconduct etc.
12. The impugned judgment too club passed yesteryear the High Court is laid aside inward persuasion of our conclusions. The State should direct maintain a determination inside 4 months from today on regularisation of the condition of the appellants.
13. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
14. We may add together that that it would last worthwhile for the State of Jharkhand to henceforth visit making regular appointments solely too dropping the thought of making irregular appointments so equally to short-circuit the procedure of regular appointments.
………………………J.(Madan B. Lokur)
New Delhi; .……………………..J.
August 01, 2018 (Deepak Gupta)
New Delhi;August 01, 2018 (Deepak Gupta)
August 01, 2018
Download courtroom club here
0 Komentar untuk "Casual Labour Regularisation – Supreme Courtroom Sentence Applicable To Those Appointed Subsequently 1993 & 2006 Who Completed X Years Service"