Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the engagement of the respondent as a casual labour in 1985. In 1993, a scheme was introduced that provided temporary status to casual labourers in Group D cadre posts. The respondent contested this scheme, leading to a dispute raised before the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 6369 of 2001. The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, directing that he be granted pay protection in Group C posts. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court had erred in its judgment, as the 1993 scheme was explicitly for Group D posts and did not extend to Group C. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that no scheme existed for the protection of Group C posts. The decision was made without costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Pay Protection - High Court's Jurisdiction - Civil Appeal No. 7703 of 2002 - The High Court directed pay protection for a casual labour in Group C posts despite no scheme existing for such protection, which was contrary to the formulated scheme for Group D posts. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its direction as the scheme was only for Group D temporary posts, thus setting aside the High Court's order (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in directing pay protection for the respondent in Group C posts.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appeal, stating that the scheme for temporary status was only applicable to Group D posts.
Law Points
- Temporary status
- Group D cadre
- pay protection
- High Court jurisdiction
- casual labour
