Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by daily wage workers, the respondents, against the State of Himachal Pradesh, through the Secretary Agriculture, challenging the termination of their services after the closure of a Central Scheme. The respondents had been engaged on daily wages on muster roll basis under a Central Scheme funded by the Central Government. After the scheme was closed due to non-availability of funds, their services were dispensed with. In the writ petition, the High Court granted an interim direction on November 18, 1992, directing their re-engagement elsewhere. Against this interim direction, the State preferred an appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the High Court could direct re-engagement or regularisation of daily wage workers after the closure of the scheme, in the absence of vacancies and non-availability of funds, and whether temporary employment conferred any vested right to continued employment or regularisation. The State argued that when a project is completed and closed due to non-availability of funds, the employees have to go along with its closure. It contended that no vested right is created in temporary employment and that directions to regularise services in the absence of existing vacancies or to create posts in a non-existent establishment are impermissible. The respondents, through their writ petition, sought continuation of employment, and the High Court's interim order had directed their re-engagement. The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, found that the High Court was not right in giving direction to regularise the workers or continue them in other places. It observed that no vested right is created in temporary employment. The Court stated that directions cannot be given to regularise services in the absence of existing vacancies, nor can directions be given to the State to create posts in a non-existent establishment. The Court would adopt a pragmatic approach in such matters, and the directions issued by the High Court would amount to creating posts and continuing employees despite non-availability of work. The Supreme Court held the directions issued by the High Court to be absolutely illegal, warranting interference. It set aside the order of the High Court, allowed the appeal, and made no order as to costs. The judgment was delivered on January 3, 1996, by a bench of K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ., with citation JT 1996 (1) 220 and 1996 SCALE (1) 253.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Temporary Employment - No Vested Right in Temporary Employment - Not mentioned - Respondents were engaged as daily wage workers on muster roll in 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 granted an interim direction on November 18, 1992, to re-engage them elsewhere. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's direction was illegal because no vested right is created in temporary employment and courts cannot direct regularization in the absence of vacancies or creation of posts in a non-existent establishment. Held that the appeal is allowed, the High Court's order is set aside, and no costs are awarded. (No paragraph numbers)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could direct re-engagement or regularisation of daily wage workers after closure of a Central Scheme due to non-availability of funds and in the absence of vacancies.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held the High Court's interim direction to be absolutely illegal, set aside the order of the High Court, and allowed the appeal. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- No vested right is created in temporary employment
- Employees must go along with closure of project due to non-availability of funds
- Courts cannot direct regularisation in absence of vacancies
- Courts cannot direct State to create posts in non-existent establishment
- Directions amounting to creation of posts and continuation despite no work are illegal
- Courts should adopt pragmatic approach in giving directions
