Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by Rajnish Kumar Mishra and others, who were ad-hoc employees of the Ambedkar Nagar Judgeship in Uttar Pradesh. The appellants were appointed on an ad-hoc basis between 1999 and 2001, initially for three months, with their terms extended periodically. In 2001, an advertisement for direct recruitment led to writ petitions, and an interim order dated 01.08.2006 allowed them to continue until the selection process was over. The selection process was later cancelled, and the appellants continued on ad-hoc basis. In 2012, a Committee chaired by an Additional District Judge recommended their regularization based on a High Court circular dated 05.11.2009 and the cut-off date of 31.12.2001. The District Judge regularized their services on 09.11.2012. However, a successor District Judge on 16.08.2014 declared the regularization non-est, withdrew benefits, and ordered recovery. The appellants challenged these orders in the High Court, which dismissed their writ petitions and imposed costs, later set aside by the Division Bench except for one employee, Manish Kumar Malviya, who was directed to be considered for regularization. The Division Bench also allowed the appellants to participate in future recruitment with age relaxation. The Supreme Court held that the appellants, having been appointed prior to 31.12.2001 and having completed over 10 years of service, were entitled to regularization as a one-time measure under the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3). The Court found no evidence of collusion and noted that the Committee's report was based on the High Court's circular. The Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the successor District Judge, directed reinstatement of the appellants with continuity of service, and ordered regularization from the date of the original regularization order (01.06.2012) with consequential benefits, including arrears of pay, to be paid within three months.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularization of Ad-hoc Employees - One-time Measure - The appellants, appointed on ad-hoc basis prior to 31.12.2001 and continued for over 10 years, were entitled to regularization as a one-time measure under Umadevi principles, despite being continued by interim orders. The cancellation of regularization by the successor District Judge was set aside as the Committee's report was based on High Court circular and not collusive. (Paras 14-18)
B) Service Law - Cut-off Date - 31.12.2001 - The cut-off date of 31.12.2001 under the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Department on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the Purview of the UP Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 was applicable, and all appellants were appointed prior to that date. (Paras 14-17)
C) Service Law - Collusion - Not Established - The High Court's finding of collusion between appellants and the Committee was not supported by evidence; the Committee's report was based on the High Court's circular dated 05.11.2009 and the cut-off date. (Paras 15-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants, appointed on ad-hoc basis prior to 31.12.2001 and continued for over 10 years, are entitled to regularization of their services as a one-time measure under the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), and whether the cancellation of their regularization by the successor District Judge was valid.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and the orders of the Single Judge and the District Judge dated 16.08.2014. The Court directed reinstatement of the appellants with continuity of service and regularization from 01.06.2012 with consequential benefits, including arrears of pay, to be paid within three months.
Law Points
- Regularization of ad-hoc employees
- One-time measure
- Umadevi principles
- Cut-off date 31.12.2001
- Collusion not established
Case Details
2019 LawText (SC) (12) 74
Civil Appeal Nos. 9413-9414 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 23297-23298 of 2018)
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal (for appellants), Shri S.R. Singh (for respondents)
Rajnish Kumar Mishra & Ors.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing writ petitions challenging the cancellation of regularization of ad-hoc employees.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought quashing of the orders dated 16.08.2014 passed by the District Judge cancelling their regularization and directing recovery, and sought reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
The appellants' services were regularized on 09.11.2012, but the successor District Judge cancelled the regularization on 16.08.2014, leading to termination of services on 23.09.2017.
Previous Decisions
The Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petitions on 14.09.2017 with costs of Rs.50,000 each. The Division Bench on 09.07.2018 dismissed the appeals but set aside the costs, and directed consideration of one employee's case for regularization and allowed others to participate in future recruitment.
Issues
Whether the appellants, appointed on ad-hoc basis prior to 31.12.2001 and continued for over 10 years, are entitled to regularization as a one-time measure under Umadevi principles?
Whether the cancellation of regularization by the successor District Judge was valid, especially in the absence of evidence of collusion?
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petitions and appeals?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the Committee's report was based on the High Court circular dated 05.11.2009 and the cut-off date of 31.12.2001, and the regularization was valid. They relied on Sheo Narain Nagar and Umadevi for one-time regularization of employees with 10 years of service.
Respondents argued that the appellants continued by virtue of interim orders, so Umadevi benefits do not apply; the Committee's report was collusive, and the successor District Judge rightly cancelled the regularization.
Ratio Decidendi
Employees appointed on ad-hoc basis prior to the cut-off date of 31.12.2001 and who have rendered continuous service for over 10 years are entitled to regularization as a one-time measure under the principles laid down in Umadevi (3), even if they continued by virtue of interim orders. The cancellation of such regularization without evidence of collusion is invalid.
Judgment Excerpts
The Committee under the chairmanship of the Additional District Judge after basically considering the Circular dated 05.11.2009 and the cutoff date of 31.12.2001 mentioned therein had submitted the report thereby, recommending regularization of the appellants.
In the said Judgment itself, the Constitution Bench had provided that as a onetime measure the State should take up steps for regularization of the employees, who had rendered the services for a period of more than 10 years.
We direct that the services of the appellants be regularized from the said date i.e. 02.10.2002, consequential benefits and the arrears of pay also to be paid to the appellants within a period of three months from today.
Procedural History
The appellants were appointed on ad-hoc basis in 1999-2001. In 2001, an advertisement for direct recruitment led to writ petitions; interim order on 01.08.2006 allowed them to continue. In 2012, a Committee recommended regularization, and the District Judge regularized them on 09.11.2012. On 16.08.2014, the successor District Judge cancelled regularization and ordered recovery. The appellants filed writ petitions, dismissed by Single Judge on 14.09.2017 with costs. Appeals to Division Bench were dismissed on 09.07.2018, but costs set aside and one employee's case directed for consideration. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Adhoc Appointment (On Post within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979:
- Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Department on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the Purview of the UP Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016: Rule 6
