Case Note & Summary
The case involved a batch of appeals before the Supreme Court of India arising from the termination of 1363 daily wage employees appointed under an anti-tuberculosis programme in the State of Bihar. Dr. A.A. Mallick, Deputy Director (Tuberculosis), had been vested with almost absolute powers to achieve targets set by the Government of India. He appointed a large number of class III and IV employees, causing the number of appointees to rise from about 2500 sanctioned posts to around 6000. Questions were raised in the Legislative Assembly by 1987, and employees who were not paid salaries approached the Patna High Court in about 250 writ petitions. The High Court directed an inquiry and appropriate orders for payment of salary for the period actually worked, subject to fulfilment of criteria. A high-powered committee was constituted, issued notices for personal hearing between 17.8.92 and 29.9.92, and submitted a report. Based on this report, a blanket termination order was issued on 30.4.93 terminating services of all employees. The affected employees challenged the termination before the High Court, which dismissed virtually all writ petitions on May 6, 1994. They then appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The main legal issues were whether the initial appointments were in accordance with law, whether the services were duly regularised, and whether natural justice was complied with before termination. Appellants argued that they were daily wage earners engaged for a crash programme, not appointed to posts, so the Office Memorandum dated 3.12.1980 did not apply. They also contended that regularisation is a constitutionally protected right under Dharwad's case. The State argued that even initial appointments required following the OM procedure and relied on Union of India v. Deepchand Pandey. Hansaria J, in his opinion, held that a casual labourer is not the holder of a post, as per the Constitution Bench in State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta, and distinguished Deepchand Pandey as not deciding that casual workers hold posts. He thus held that the OM procedure was not required for initial daily wage appointments. On regularisation, he noted the constitutionally protected right and the norms summarised in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh. He emphasised that Article 21 requires a cautious approach to protect livelihood and that only wrong-doers should be punished, not those with mere doubt. Consequently, Hansaria J opined that the impugned blanket termination order deserved to be set aside, disagreeing with the other judge who upheld the termination.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Daily Wage Appointments - Applicability of Recruitment Procedure - Constitution of India, Article 16 - The initial appointments were made on daily wage basis to implement a crash anti-tuberculosis programme, not against sanctioned posts. The Office Memorandum dated 3.12.1980 prescribed procedure for appointment to posts, but as held in State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta, a casual labourer is not holder of a post. Union of India v. Deepchand Pandey did not decide that casual workers hold posts. Held that the OM procedure was not required for initial daily wage appointments (Paras 7-11). B) Service Law - Regularisation - Constitutionally Protected Right - Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 - Regularisation of ad-hoc/temporary employees is a constitutionally protected right as per Dharwad's case (1990) 2 SCC 396. The law summarised in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (1992) 4 SCC 118 requires regular recruitment through prescribed agency, replacement of ad hoc by regular appointees, employment exchange sponsorship, publication of notice, and reservation for SC/ST. Held that regularisation claims must be examined in light of these norms, and procedural requirements should not defeat the protected right (Paras 13-15). C) Constitutional Law - Natural Justice - Blanket Termination of Services - Constitution of India, Article 21 - The blanket termination order of 30.4.1993 affected 1363 employees and took away livelihood. Hansaria J emphasized that Article 21 requires a cautious approach and that only wrong-doers should be punished, not those with mere doubt. He opined that the impugned termination order deserved to be set aside rather than upheld, differing from the other judge. Held that termination must comply with natural justice and individual consideration (Paras 1, 2, 2A).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the initial appointments of the appellants were in accordance with law; whether the services of the appellants were duly regularised; whether natural justice had been complied with before their services were terminated
Final Decision
Hansaria J held that the initial appointments of the appellants were not to any posts, being daily wage engagements for a crash programme, so the procedure under the 1980 Office Memorandum did not apply. He further opined that the blanket termination order dated 30.4.93 deserved to be set aside, and the appeals should be allowed, as the State had not complied with legal requirements and natural justice.
Law Points
- Casual labourer is not holder of a post
- daily wage appointments for crash programme not subject to Office Memorandum procedure
- regularisation of ad hoc/temporary employees is constitutionally protected
- recruitment norms from State of Haryana v. Piara Singh apply
- natural justice and Article 21 protect livelihood
- blanket termination without individual consideration invalid
