Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court To seek regularisation, a daily rated employee must have been initially appointed by a competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post MANU/SC/0098/2023 - (08 Feb 2023) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Vibhuti Shankar Pandey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">Present appeal has been filed by the Appellant who is aggrieved by the order, by which a Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge which had granted the benefit of regularization to the present Appellant. 
The case of the Appellant is that he was engaged in 1980 as a Supervisor, on daily rated basis, under a project of the State Water Resources Department of Madhya Pradesh. The Appellant sought regularization on the post of Supervisor/Time Keeper. Admittedly, the minimum qualification for the said post was matriculation with mathematics; a qualification which the Appellant did not possess. 
The claim of the Appellant for regularization was rejected for the reasons that though the minimum qualifications of matriculation with mathematics will not come in the way for his regularization, but the fact remains that the Appellant was never appointed against any post. Moreover, his appointment was never made by the competent authority and there were no posts available at the time for regularization. The Appellant on the other hand, had set his claim for regularization as persons who were junior to him as daily wagers were regularized in the year 1990 or even before. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition gave directions for regularization of the Appellant from the date on which his juniors were regularized. This order was challenged by the State Government before a Division Bench which allowed the appeal of the State Government. 
 The Division Bench rightly held that, the learned Single Judge has not followed the principle of law as given by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors., as initial appointment must be done by the competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily rated employee must be working. These two conditions were clearly missing in the case of the present Appellant. 
 The Division Bench of the High Court therefore has rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the order. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors., the Appellant had no case for regularization. There is no scope with the order of the Division Bench of the High Court. Appeal dismissed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Regularization, Benefit, Grant</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>