Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THROUGH THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURE TO THE GOVT. OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAversusNODHA RAM AND ORS.

Citation
1996 INSC 13
Decided
3 January 1996
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Holding

No vested right is created on temporary employment; courts cannot direct regularisation or creation of posts where no vacancy exists.

Summary

The respondents were daily‑wage workers engaged on a muster‑roll under a Central Scheme and were paid from Central Government funds. After the scheme was completed and closed due to lack of funds, their services were terminated. They filed a writ petition in the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which issued an interim direction ordering their re‑engagement elsewhere. On special leave, the State appealed, arguing that temporary employment does not create a vested right and that the court cannot compel the State to regularise or create posts where no vacancy exists. The Supreme Court held that no vested right arises from temporary employment and that directing regularisation or creation of posts in the absence of vacancies is illegal. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

  • Whether temporary employees acquire a vested right to continued employment or regularisation after the closure of a project.
  • Whether a court can direct the State to create posts or regularise temporary employees in the absence of any vacancy.

Legislation cited

Subjects

temporary employmentvested rightregularisationservice lawwrit petitionhigh courtSupreme Courtpragmatic approachcreation of postsvacancy

Judgment

A ·              STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THROUGH
              THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURE TO THE GOVT. OF
                      HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ·
                                            v.
                              NODHA RAM AND ORS.

B                                 JANUARY 3, 1996

                   [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

            Constitution of India, 1950:

C            Articles 226, I 36--Daily wagers on muster roll--Paid from funds pro-
      vided by Central Government--Project completed and closed due to non-avail-
      ability offunds-&rvices dispensed with-Writ Petition-High Court order-
      ing re-engagement of the employees-On appeal held: no vested right is cre-
      ated on temporary employment-Non-availability of vacancies--Courts to
D     adopt pragmatic approach-Regularisation/Creation of posts cannot be
      directed--Service Law-Regularisation.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1539of 1996.

           From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.92 of the Himachal Pradesh
E     High Court in C.W.P. No. 860 of 1992.

            Naresh K. Sharma for the Appellant.

            Uma Datta for the Respondents.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered:
F
            Leave granted.

            Heard Counsel on both sides.

             The facts are that the respondents were engaged on daily wages on mus-
G     ter 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 serv-
      ices were dispensed with. When the respondents filed the writ petition in the
      High Court, the High Court gave interim directi.on on November 18, 1992 and
      directed their re-engagement elsewhere. Against the aforesaid interim direc-
H     tion, this appeal by special leave has heen filed.
                                            54
\.
                             STATE OF H.P. v. NODHA RAM                           SS
            It is seen that when the project is completed and closed due to non-         A
     availability of funds, the employees have to go along with its closure. The
     High Court was not right in giving the direction to regularise them or to con-
     tinue them in other places. No vested right is created in temporary employ-
     ment. Directions cann_ot be given to regularise their services in the absence of
     any existing vacancies nor can directions be given to the State to create posts
                                                                                         B
     in a non-exist~nt establislunent. The Court would adopt pragn1atic approach
     in giving directions. !he directions would amount to creating of posts and
     continuing them despite non-availability of the work. We are of the consid-
     ered view that the directions issued by the High Court are absolutely illegal
     warranting our interference. The order of the High Court is, therefore, set side.
                                                                                         c
            The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

     G.N.                                                          Appeal allowed.


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "temporary employment"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.