Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India addressed an appeal by special leave filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated November 9, 1995 in Special Appeal No. 302/95. The dispute concerned the regularisation of a daily wage employee, Ajay Kumar, who was appointed on February 14, 1985 as a Class IV employee, Nursing Orderly, in a Medical College by the Medical Superintendent. The respondent had filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking regularisation of his service. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, observing that the respondent had not brought to the court's notice any statutory rule under which he could be regularised based on his daily wage service, and that the method of recruitment adopted by the Superintendent was improper as no applications were called. The Division Bench reversed the single Judge's decision and directed the appellant to regularise the respondent's service to the post as and when a vacancy arose and to continue him until then. The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, noted the settled legal position that there must exist a post and either administrative instructions or statutory rules must be in operation to appoint a person to the post. The Court held that daily wage appointment is obviously in relation to contingent establishment where no post exists and it continues only so long as the work exists. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench was clearly in error in directing regularisation. The direction was held to be illegal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, upheld the order of the learned single Judge, and set aside the Division Bench's order. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation of Daily Wage Employees - Regularisation requires existence of a post and applicable statutory rules or administrative instructions - Not mentioned - The respondent was appointed on daily wage basis as Class IV Nursing Orderly; the single Judge found no statutory rule and noted improper recruitment method, while the Division Bench directed regularisation when vacancy arises. The Supreme Court held that daily wage appointment is contingent and no post exists; therefore the Division Bench erred in directing regularisation. Held that the direction to regularise was illegal; the single Judge's order was upheld and the Division Bench's order was set aside.
Issue of Consideration
Whether a daily wage employee can be regularised in service when no post exists and no statutory rule or administrative instruction provides for regularisation
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; order of the learned single Judge upheld; Division Bench order set aside; no costs
Law Points
- Regularisation requires existence of a post
- administrative instructions or statutory rules must be in operation
- daily wage appointment is contingent and continues only so long as work exists
- no direction to regularise without post and rules
