Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard appeals by special leave against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi. The dispute concerned the claim of part-time Class IV employees in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts for temporary status or regularisation. The respondents, including Bishamber Dutt, were appointed on various dates in September 1990, November 1991 and September (year not fully stated) as part-time Class IV employees. They received consolidated pay of Rs. 500 per month, later raised to Rs. 600 per month, for working six hours a day. There was a controversy whether the appointments were on hourly, monthly or full-time basis, but it was admitted that they were not appointed to regular posts after selection according to rules. They were appointed as part-time employees de hors the rules. The Central Administrative Tribunal directed that they be granted temporary status or regularisation. The Union of India challenged this direction, contending that under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension Memorandum dated July 12, 1994, Clause 3, part-time employees were not entitled to such status. The respondents argued that their long and regular working entitled them to regularisation. The Court rejected the respondents' argument, holding that unless employees are appointed on regular basis according to rules after consideration of claims on merits, there is no question of regularisation of services. It held that since the employees were not appointed on regular basis in accordance with rules, the Tribunal's direction to regularise the service was obviously illegal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed no costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation of Part-Time Employees - Regularisation Requires Appointment According to Rules - Not mentioned - The respondent and other part-time Class IV employees in the office of Controller of Defence Accounts were appointed on consolidated pay, working six hours a day, but not appointed to regular posts after selection according to rules. The Central Administrative Tribunal directed temporary status or regularisation. The Supreme Court held that part-time employees appointed de hors rules are not entitled to temporary status or regularisation; regularisation requires appointment on regular basis according to rules after consideration of claims on merits. Held that the Tribunal's direction was illegal and set aside, appeals allowed with no costs.
Issue of Consideration
Whether part-time Class IV employees appointed de hors rules are entitled to temporary status or regularisation as directed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; order of the Central Administrative Tribunal set aside; no costs.
Law Points
- Part-time employees appointed de hors rules are not entitled to temporary status or regularisation
- regularisation requires appointment on regular basis according to rules after consideration of claims on merits
- consolidated pay does not confer regularisation rights
