Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA AND ORSversusBISHAMBER DUTT

Citation: 1996 INSC 1207
Decided: 23 October 1996
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMY

Holding

Part‑time Class IV employees not appointed on a regular basis under the applicable rules are not entitled to regularisation, making the Tribunal’s order illegal.

Summary

The Court considered appeals by the Union of India against a Central Administrative Tribunal order directing the regularisation of certain Class IV employees appointed on a part‑time basis in the Controller of Defence Accounts. The respondents, appointed on specific dates between 1990 and 1994, received a consolidated monthly salary and claimed entitlement to regular or temporary status. The Ministry of Personnel had issued a memorandum stating that part‑time employees were not eligible for temporary status. The Court held that because the employees were not appointed to regular posts following the prescribed selection rules, they could not be regularised, rendering the Tribunal’s direction illegal. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and the Tribunal’s order was set aside.

Issues considered

Whether part‑time Class IV employees appointed without selection under service rules are entitled to regularisation or temporary status.
Whether the Tribunal’s direction to regularise such employees is legally valid.

Subjects

service lawregularisationpart‑time employmentClass IV employeesCentral Administrative Tribunaltemporary statusemployment law

Judgment

A                         UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
                                         v.
                                BISHAMBER DUTT

                                OCTOBER 23, 1996

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

          Service Law

          Regularisatioit-Class IV employees appointed on part-time basis-
C Held, not entitled to regulmisation since they were not appointed on regular
    basis ac,cording to mies.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.14528-30
    of 1996.

D         From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.96 of the Central Ad-
    ministrative Tribunal at Delhi in 0.A. Nos. 1475, 1583-84 of 1995.

         Ms. K. Amareshwari, Mrs. Anil Katiyar and Ms. Anubha Jain for the
    Appellants.

          G.S. Beqrar and N.S. Behl for the Respondent.
E
          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Leave granted.

          We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
F
        These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Central
    Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi.

        The admitted position is that the respondent along with others came
  to be appointed on September 3, 1990 , November 14, 1991 and September
                                                                                   -
G 14, 1994 as Class IV employees in the office of the Controller of Defence
  Accounts on part-time basis. There is a controversy as to whether they are
  appointed on hourly basis or on regular basis. The admitted position is that
  they were receiving the consolidated pay of Rs. 500 per month which was
  raised to Rs. 600 per month for working six hours a day. It is not necessary
H to consider the case whether it is full-time or hourly basis or monthly basis.
                                        650
                           U.O.L v. BISHAMBER DUlT                          651
    Suffice it to state that they were not appointed to a regular post after A
    selection according to rules; they were appointed as part-time employees
    de hors the rules. The question, therefore, is: whether they are entitled to
    the temporary status or regularisation as directed by the Tribunal? It is
    seen that pursuant to the enquiry whether temporary status should be
    granted to the part-time employees, directions were issued by the Ministry B
    of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension dated July 12, 1994 in the
    Memorandum, Clause 3, that they are not entitled to such status. Since they
    are not appointed on regular basis in accordance with rules the direction
    issued by the Tribunal to regularise the service is obviously illegal. It is then
    contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the
    fact that they were regularly working for a long time they are entitled to    c
    regularisation. We do not appreciate the stand taken on behalf of the
    respondents. Unless they aie appointed on regular basis according to rules
    after consideration of the claims on merits, there is no question of
    regularisation of the services.

           The appeals are accordingly allowed. The orders of the Tribunal is D
    set aside. No costs.

    G.N.                                                      Appeals allowed.




>

Search Indian case law

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

Try "service law"Sign in to search