Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the regularisation of a casual employee in the Central Social Welfare Board Scheme. The respondent was appointed against a casual vacancy on February 11, 1992 and continued in service. She filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court seeking a direction for regularisation of her services. The learned Single Judge held that she was not entitled to regularisation because the mode of her appointment was not in accordance with the rules. However, the Division Bench of the High Court in FMAT No.16/95 by order dated January 24, 1996 reversed the Single Judge's decision and directed the petitioners to regularise the respondent's service in the post of Gram Sevika with effect from the date she completed three years of service, and to pay arrears of salary and other benefits within two months. The Central Welfare Board challenged this order before the Supreme Court by special leave petition. The petitioners contended that the project was being wound up in a phased manner and the services of employees were being dispensed with. They stated that no junior to the respondent was allowed to continue in the said project, and that in other projects, persons engaged were continuing on temporary basis and were senior to the respondent. Therefore, the respondent could not be regularised in any other scheme. The Supreme Court took note of this stand and did not uphold the direction for immediate regularisation. It directed that the respondent should be continued in any other temporary scheme, but keeping in mind the overall seniority of all persons; that dispensing with services should be on last-come-first-go basis, i.e., the juniormost incumbent has to go out first; that as and when vacancies would arise, persons whose services had been dispensed with would be taken back without following the practice of requisitioning names of candidates from employment exchange; and that they would be regularised only when regular posts were available and in accordance with the order of seniority. The special leave petition was accordingly ordered.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation - Casual Vacancy - Not mentioned - The respondent was appointed against a casual vacancy in the Central Social Welfare Board Scheme without following rules; the Single Judge held she was not entitled to regularisation. The Division Bench directed regularisation from completion of three years, but the Supreme Court modified this, holding that since the project was being wound up and regular posts were not available, automatic regularisation could not be directed. Held that regularisation may occur only when regular posts are available and in accordance with seniority. B) Service Law - Retrenchment and Recall - Last-Come-First-Go - Not mentioned - The Supreme Court directed that in winding up the scheme, services of temporary employees should be dispensed with on last-come-first-go basis keeping overall seniority, and that when vacancies arise, those whose services were dispensed with should be taken back without requisitioning names from employment exchange. Held that this ensures fairness among temporary employees pending availability of regular posts.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent was entitled to regularisation in the post of Gram Sevika despite her appointment being against a casual vacancy and not in accordance with rules; and what relief should be granted when the project is being wound up and other temporary employees senior to the respondent are continuing.
Final Decision
The special leave petition was ordered. The Supreme Court directed the petitioners to continue the respondent in any other temporary scheme, keeping in mind the overall seniority of all persons; the dispensing with services should be on last-come-first-go basis, i.e., the juniormost incumbent has to go out first. As and when vacancies would arise, such persons whose services have been dispensed with will be taken back without following the practice of requisitioning the names of candidates from the employment exchange. They would be regularised only when regular posts are available and in accordance with the order of seniority.
Law Points
- Regularisation cannot be directed when appointment not in accordance with rules and project being wound up
- Services of temporary employees to be dispensed on last-come-first-go
- Re-employment of retrenched employees without employment exchange requisition
- Regularisation only when regular posts available and according to seniority
