Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a writ petition filed by daily-wage workers in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The State of Himachal Pradesh, through the Secretary (Rural Development), appealed by special leave against the High Court's order disposing of the writ petition in favour of the respondents, Ashwani Kumar and others. The dispute concerned the legality of directions to re-engage and regularise the services of persons engaged on daily wages under a Central Scheme. The respondents were engaged on daily wages on muster roll basis in a Central Scheme and were paid out of funds provided by the Central Government. After the scheme was closed, their services were dispensed with. They filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking relief. On 6 January 1993, the High Court issued an interim direction to re-engage them elsewhere. Pursuant to that interim direction, the writ petition was disposed of on 9 March 1993. Aggrieved, the State filed an appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court. The core question was whether the High Court could direct the State to re-engage daily-wage workers elsewhere or regularise their services after the closure of the Central Scheme, particularly when no existing vacancies or sanctioned posts were shown. The State contended that the respondents were temporary daily-wage workers under a Central Scheme, their services ended with the scheme's closure, and the High Court's directions were legally unsustainable. The judgment did not record detailed submissions of the respondents, but their writ petition sought continuation and re-engagement. The Supreme Court observed that when a project is completed and closed due to non-availability of funds, the employees engaged for that project must go along with the closed project. It held that no vested right is created in temporary employment. Directions cannot be given to regularise services in the absence of existing vacancies, nor can directions be given to create posts by the State for a non-existent establishment. The court stated that relief should be pragmatic and that the High Court's directions effectively amounted to creating posts and continuing employees despite non-availability of work. It found the High Court's directions absolutely illegal and warranting interference. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and imposed no costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation of Daily-Wage Workers - No vested right in temporary employment - Not mentioned - The respondents were engaged on daily wages on muster roll basis under a Central Scheme funded by the Central Government; after the Scheme closed due to non-availability of funds, their services were dispensed with. The High Court issued interim direction on 6 January 1993 to re-engage them elsewhere and disposed of the writ petition on 9 March 1993 accordingly. The Supreme Court held that no vested right is created in temporary employment and courts cannot direct regularisation in the absence of existing vacancies or direct creation of posts. Held that the High Court's directions were absolutely illegal and set aside the order, allowing the appeal with no costs (Para 1). B) Service Law - Closure of Scheme and Termination - Employees must go with closed project - Not mentioned - When a project or scheme is completed and closed due to non-availability of funds, the employees engaged under it have no right to continue or to be re-engaged in other places. The Supreme Court emphasised that directions cannot amount to creating posts or continuing employees despite non-availability of work. Held that the High Court erred in granting such relief (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in directing re-engagement and regularisation of daily-wage employees engaged under a Central Scheme after the scheme was closed due to non-availability of funds.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and held that the directions issued by the High Court to re-engage or regularise the daily-wage workers were absolutely illegal; no costs were imposed.
Law Points
- temporary employment creates no vested right
- no direction to regularise without existing vacancies
- no direction to create posts
- employees go with closed project
- pragmatic approach in directions
- High Court directions illegal
