Make regular Appointments only, Supreme Court to Jharkhand Government. Four months time given to consider the appellants for regularization
August 1, 2018
A Bench of Judges, Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta passed Judgment in Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. Etc. v. The state of Jharkhand & Ors etc. Civil Appeal No. 7423-7429 of 2018 and directed the state government to consider the appellants for regularization of employment and allotted 4 months time.
The facts of the case are:
The appellants are irregularly appointed employees of the State
Government. They sought regularisation of their status on the ground that
they had put in more than 10 years of service and were therefore entitled to
be regularised. The High Court took the view that the decision of the
Constitution Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors.
v. Umadevi (3) and Ors.1 did not permit their regularisation since they had
not worked for 10 years on the cut-off date of 10th April, 2006 when the
Constitution Bench rendered its decision. According to the High Court, the
Regularisation Rules provided a one-time measure of regularisation of the
services of irregularly appointed employees based on the cut-off date of
10th April, 2006 in terms of the judgment of the Constitution Bench.
Therefore, since the appellants had not put in 10 years of service they
could not be regularised The appellants had contended before the High Court
that the State of Jharkhand was created only on 15th November, 2000 and
therefore no one could have completed 10 years of service with the State of
Jharkhand on the cut-off date of 10th April, 2006. Therefore, no one could
get the benefit of the Regularisation Rules which made the entire
legislative exercise totally meaningless. The appellants had pointed out in
the High Court that the State had issued Resolutions on 18th July, 2009 and
19th July, 2009 permitting the regularisation of some employees of the
State, who had obviously not put in 10 years of service with the State. The
appellants had contended before the High Court that the State of Jharkhand
was created only on 15th November, 2000 and therefore no one could have
completed 10 years of service with the State of Jharkhand on the cut-off
date of 10th April, 2006. Therefore, no one could get the benefit of the
Regularisation Rules which made the entire legislative exercise totally
meaningless. The appellants had pointed out in the High Court that the State
had issued Resolutions on 18th July, 2009 and 19th July, 2009 permitting the
regularisation of some employees of the State, who had obviously not put in
10 years of service with the State.
The Court observed that "The decision in Umadevi (3) was intended to put a full stop to the somewhat pernicious practice of irregularly or illegally appointing daily wage workers and continuing with them indefinitely. In fact, in paragraph 49 of the Report, it was pointed out that the rule of law requires appointments to be made in a constitutional manner and the State cannot be permitted to perpetuate an irregularity in the matter of public employment which would adversely affect those who could be employed in terms of the constitutional scheme. It is for this reason that the concept of a one-time measure and a cut-off date was introduced in the hope and expectation that the State would cease and desist from making irregular or illegal appointments and instead make appointments on a regular basis."
"8. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) was therefore two-fold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) and Kesari sought to avoid" Supreme Court said that "10. The High Court as well as the State of Jharkhand ought to have considered the entire issue in a contextual perspective and not only from the point of view of the interest of the State, financial or otherwise - the interest of the employees is also required to be kept in mind. What has eventually been achieved by the State of Jharkhand is to short circuit the process of regular appointments and instead make appointments on an irregular basis. This is hardly good governance."
"11. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation
Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they
have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the
Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered
by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be
regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularization
like misconduct etc.
12. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside in
view of our conclusions. The State should take a decision within four months
from today on regularisation of the status of the appellants."
Read the Judgment of Supreme Court of India in Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. Etc. v. The state of Jharkhand & Ors etc. Civil Appeal No. 7423-7429 of 2018 dated 01.8.2018