Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the termination of Class III and Class IV employees who had been engaged on temporary basis for the 1991 census operations in the State of Bihar. These employees, including Supervisors, Checkers, and Compilers, were appointed by the Central Government through advertisement and employment exchange nominations, and their services were terminated after the census work was completed. The Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India, by letter dated December 26, 1991, requested State Governments to absorb such temporary staff as Regional Tabulation Offices wound up. The State of Bihar, through its Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, declined by letter dated September 2, 1992, citing excessive retrenched and surplus employees already awaiting adjustment in State service. Aggrieved retrenched employees filed writ petitions in the Patna High Court seeking quashing of the refusal letter and a direction to the State Government to absorb them against existing vacancies. The High Court allowed the petitions by judgments dated February 18, 1994 and March 9, 1994, directing the State Government to consider the cases of the retrenched census employees for absorption along with others at the time of regular appointments, with preference if otherwise eligible, age relaxation equivalent to the period served in the Census Department, and strict adherence to inter se seniority. The High Court relied on a Cabinet decision dated January 8, 1973 and subsequent executive instructions dated April 7, 1982, May 14, 1985, February 14, 1986, May 5, 1987 and August 19, 1987. The State of Bihar appealed to the Supreme Court. The primary legal issues were whether the retrenched 1991 census employees had a right to absorption in State Government service and whether the State had formulated a policy decision covering them. The employees contended that they were State Government employees and that the State was obligated to absorb them, relying on the said policy documents. The State argued that the documents pertained only to retrenched census employees of 1971 and 1981 or general retrenched government servants, not to 1991, and that it was administratively impossible to absorb them due to surplus employees. The Supreme Court rejected the employees' claim that they were State Government employees, noting this contention was raised for the first time and contradicted their own writ petition averments that they were Central Government employees appointed by the Central Government in the Home Ministry. The Court examined the cited documents and found that the January 8, 1973 memo did not mention census employees but only general retrenched government servants. The letters of 1982, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1987 were specific to the 1971 and 1981 census operations and did not create a policy for subsequent census years. The Court concluded that no policy decision existed for absorption of 1991 census retrenched employees, and the State's refusal was valid. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court judgments, and held that the retrenched employees had no legal right to absorption in State Government service.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Absorption of Temporary Employees - No Vested Right to Absorption - The Census Act, 1948 - Temporary Class III and IV employees engaged for 1991 census operations by the Central Government were terminated after completion of census; they sought absorption in State Government service relying on alleged policy decisions. The Supreme Court held that they were Central Government employees, not State Government employees, and no legal obligation existed on the State to absorb them; absence of specific policy decision for 1991 census precluded any direction for absorption. B) Administrative Law - Policy Decision - Interpretation of Government Instructions - The Census Act, 1948 - Various letters and memoranda from 1973 to 1987 relating to retrenched census employees were examined; the Court found they pertained to 1971 and 1981 census operations or general retrenched government servants, not to 1991 census employees. The State's communication dated September 2, 1992 refusing absorption due to surplus employees was valid; no binding policy decision covered 1991 census retrenched employees. C) Constitutional Law - Equality and Employment - Age Relaxation and Preference - The Census Act, 1948 - High Court directed State to consider absorption with age relaxation and preference based on inter se seniority; Supreme Court held such relief was not warranted as no legal right or policy existed for 1991 census employees; directions were set aside.
Issue of Consideration
Whether Class III and Class IV employees employed in connection with 1991 census operations in Bihar and terminated after completion are entitled to absorption in service under the Government of Bihar; whether the State Government had taken a policy decision regarding absorption of 1991 retrenched census employees.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside High Court judgments, and held that retrenched employees of 1991 census operations had no legal right to absorption in State Government service; no policy decision covering 1991 census employees existed.
Law Points
- Temporary census employees have no vested right to absorption
- State Government cannot be compelled to absorb Central Government employees absent specific policy
- administrative instructions for previous census years do not create entitlement for subsequent years
- age relaxation and preference not available without policy
