CENTRAL WELFARE BOARD AND ORS.versusMS. ANJALI BEPARI AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 818
- Decided
- 2 August 1996
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
Holding
The respondent shall be continued in a temporary scheme with due regard to overall seniority, and regularisation shall occur only when regular posts become available, thereby modifying the High Court's order of regularisation.
Summary
Ms. Anjali Bepari was appointed as a Gram Sevika under the Central Social Welfare Board Scheme against a casual vacancy on 11 February 1992 and sought regularisation of her services. The Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court rejected her claim, holding the appointment was not in accordance with the rules, but a Division Bench later reversed that order and directed her regularisation with back wages. The Board appealed via a Special Leave Petition, contending that the project was being wound up, employees were being dispensed, and seniority considerations precluded her regularisation. The Supreme Court held that while the project’s winding up is relevant, the respondent must be continued in another temporary scheme, respecting overall seniority and applying a last‑come‑first‑go principle for dispensing services, with regularisation only when regular posts become available. Accordingly, the Court modified the High Court order, directing continuation in a temporary post and seniority‑based regularisation.
Issues considered
- Whether an appointment made against a casual vacancy under the Central Social Welfare Board Scheme is amenable to regularisation.
- Whether the High Court's order directing regularisation is valid in view of the project’s phased winding up and seniority considerations.
- Whether the employee is entitled to regularisation under service law principles despite the project’s disposal of staff.
- Whether the dispensing of services should follow a last‑come‑first‑go principle.
Subjects
Judgment
CENTRAL WELFARE BOARD AND ORS. A
v.
MS. ANJALI BEPARI AND ORS.
AUGUST 2, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B
Service Law :
Ce11tral Social Welfw~ Board Scheme-Gram Sevika-Appoi11tment
against casual vacancy--<:laim for regulaiisation--Si11gle Judge of High Cowt C
rejecti11g the claim-Divisio11 Be11ch directi11g regularisation of the
employee-Appeal by the Board contending that the project under which the
respondent was engaged is being wound up in a phased 1nanner and services
of employees are being dispe11sed with-No perso11 ju11ior to respo11dent was
allowed to continue-17ie1~ are other projects being operated similarly and
persons engaged therein are continuing on ten1porary basis and are senior to D
the respo11dent--Held, the Board will conti11ue the respondent i11 any other
temporary scheme but keepi11g in mi11d the overall senio1ity of all the per-
sons-The dispensing with the services should be on last-come first-go
basis-When vacancies arise the persons whose seJVices have been dispensed
with will be taken back without requisitio11ing names of candidates from E
employment excha11ge.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 16906 of i996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.1.96 of the Calcutta High F
Court in F.M.A.T. No. 16 of 1995.
S.W.A. Qadri and L.R. Singh for the Petitioners.
Bijan Kr. Ghosh for the Respondent No. 1.
I G
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Mr. Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Advocate takes notice for respondent No. 1.
It is not in dispute that the respondent came to be appointed against
a casual vacancy in the Central Social Welfare Board Scheme. The respon- H
275
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A dent has been continuing ever since the date of appointment, namely,
February 11, 1992. She filed writ petition in the Calcutta High Court for
direction to regularise her services. The learned Single .I udge held in the
judgment that that she was not entitled to regularisation as the mode of
her appointment was not in accordance with the rules. In the impugned
order dated January 24, 1996, the Division Bench in FMAT No. 16/95
B
reversed the order of the learned Single .Judge and directed regularisation
of the services of the respondent as under :
"The appeal, therefore, succeeds. The judgment and order of the
trial court is set aside. The writ application is allowed. The respon-
•
c dents are directed to regularise the service of the appellant in the
post of Gram Sevika with effect from the date she completed three
years of service in the concerned Project positively within two
months from date and also to pay her arrears salaries and other
·benefits, if any, within the aforesaid period."
D Calling this order in question, this SLP has been filed. It is not in
di>pute that the project is being wound up in a phased manner and the
services of the employees are being dispensed accordingly. It is stated by
the learned counsel for the petitioners that no junior to the respondent was
allowed to continue in the said project. It is stated that there are other
E project being operated similarly, but the persons engaged therein also are
continuing on temporary basis and are senior to the respondent. Therefore,
she cannot be regularised in any other scheme. In view of the above stand,
we direct the petitioners to continue the respondent in any other temporary
scheme but keeping in mind the overall seniority of all the persons; the
dispensing with the services should be on last-come-first-go basis, i.e., the
F juniormost incumbent has to go out first. As and when vacancies would
arise, such persons whose services have been dispensed with will be taken
back without following the practice of requisitioning the names of can-
didates from the employment exchange. They would be regularised only
when regular posts are available and in accordance with the order of
G seniority.
The special leave petition is accordingly ordered.
R.P. Petition ordered.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.