Gauhati HC: DRT Has to Dispose of Application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act as per RDB Act  ||  Kerala HC: Showing or Waving Black Flag to a Person Cannot Amount to Defamation  ||  Del. HC: Merit Based Review of Arb. Award Involving Reappraisal of Factual Findings is Impermissible  ||  Del. HC: It is the Product and Not the Technology Used that Determines HSN Classification  ||  P&H HC: Provis. of Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen (First Amendment) Rules are Unconstitutional  ||  Cal HC: High Time that Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage be Read as Grounds of Desertion & Cruelty  ||  Supreme Court: Third Party Can File SLP Against Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Absolute Ownership in Property as Per HSA Can’t be Claimed by Woman with Limited Interest  ||  SC: Can’t Forego Fundamental Requirements of Election of Society in Absence of Specific Provisions  ||  SC: Special Efforts Should be Made to Identify Women Prisoners Eligible for Release u/s 479 of BNSS    

Secretary To Government Commercial Taxes And Registration Department, Secretariat AND Anr. v. A. Singamuthu - (Supreme Court) (07 Mar 2017)

Continuance in service for long period on part-time or temporary basis confers no right to seek regularisation in service

MANU/SC/0235/2017

Service

Present Civil Appeal arises out of judgment of High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissing Writ Appeal thereby affirming order of Single Judge directing to grant regularization to Respondent from date of completion of ten years of service with salary and other benefits. Single Judge directed Inspector General of Registration to extend benefits of G.O. Ms. No. 22 dated 28th February, 2006 and grant regularization to Respondent from date of completion of ten years of service with salary and other benefits. Being aggrieved, Appellant-Department filed writ appeal contending that G.O.Ms. No.22 dated 28th February, 2006 is applicable only to daily wage full-time employees and not applicable to Respondent as Respondent was only a part-time Masalchi. Writ Appeal filed by Department was dismissed by High Court affirming order of Single Judge.

Part-time or casual employment is meant to serve exigencies of administration. It is a settled principle of law that continuance in service for long period on part-time or temporary basis confers no right to seek regularisation in service. The person who is engaged on temporary or casual basis is well aware of the nature of his employment and he consciously accepted the same at the time of seeking employment. Generally, while directing that temporary or part-time appointments be regularised or made permanent, Courts are swayed by the long period of service rendered by the employees. However, this may not be always a correct approach to adopt especially when the scheme of regularisation is missing from rule book and regularisation casts huge financial implications on public exchequer.

In present case, it is available on record that, State Government vide G.O. Ms. No.22 dated 28th February, 2006, issued by Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, directed the services of daily wage employees working in all Departments of Government, who have rendered ten years of service as on 1st January, 2006 to be regularised by appointing them in time scale of pay of the post concerned subject to they being otherwise qualified for the post. In G.O. Ms. No.74, it was thus, made clear that part-time employees are not entitled for regularization and that full-time daily wage employees, who had completed ten years of service as on 1st January, 2006 shall be regularized against regular vacancies in sanctioned post. Services of daily wage employees who have completed ten years of service after 1st January, 2006 are not entitled for regularization. In present case, Respondent was engaged to fetch water, to sweep and other connected menial works for one or two hours in a day as part-time Masalchi. Post of part-time Masalchi is not included in Class IV or V of the Tamil Nadu Basic Service. Further, a part-time Masalchi cannot be treated as equivalent to post of Masalchi (full-time) basis because the post of part-time Masalchi does not come under purview of service rules. Respondent herein was only a part-time Masalchi and hence, question of applying G.O.Ms.No. 22 P &AR Dept. dated 28th February, 2006, which is applicable only to the daily wage full-time employees, does not arise.

G.O.(Rt.)No.84 Commercial Taxes and Registration (M2) Department dated 18th June, 2012 was issued, by which 172 part-time Masalchis, who were working for more than ten years as part-time Masalchis in Registration Department were regularized from date of issuance of G.O. providing the grant of monetary benefits from the date of issuance of Government Order. In G.O.(Rt) No.84 dated 18th June, 2012, it was clearly stated that G.O.Ms.No.22 P &A R Dept. dated 28th February, 2006 was applicable only to full-time daily wage employees and that the same was not applicable to part-time Masalchis. In said G.O.(Rt.)No.84 dated 18.06.2012, it was made clear that monetary benefits are only from date of issuance of order of regularization.

In State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Daya Lal and Others, this Court has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and clearly laid down that part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they do not work against any sanctioned posts. Part-time employees in government-run institutions can in no case claim parity in salary with regular employees of the government on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

Even regularisation of services of part-time employees vide G.O.(Rt.) No.505 Finance (AA-2) Department dated 14th October, 2009 and G.O.(2D) No.32 Finance (T.A.2)Department dated 26th March, 2010 was effected by extending benefit of G.O. dated 28th February, 2006 only from date of Government Orders and not from date of completion of their ten years of service. As per G.O.(Rt.) No.84 dated 18th June, 2012, Respondent is entitled to monetary benefits only from date of issuance of Government Order regularizing his service that is 18th June, 2012. Impugned order of Division Bench affirming the order of Single Judge granting benefits to the Respondent from the date of completion of ten years of service is erroneous and Supreme Court set aside the same.

Relevant : State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Daya Lal and Others(2011) 2 SCC 429

Tags : REGULARIZATION   DIRECTION   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved