Labour Laws: Regularisation – Claim of – Respondents engaged as registration clerks on daily wages – Respondent’s case that his appointment was on a regular basis and not as a daily wager – Proceedings before the High Court and this Court – On remand to the High Court to consider whether the appointment made were in consistent with r. 22, the High Court holding that the appointment was not in breach of r. 22, set aside the termination and issued directions for grant of consequential benefits – On appeal, held: Record clearly indicate that the engagement of the respondent at all material times was only as a daily wager and, there is no order by which he was treated to be in the regular service of the District Registrar – He has no vested right to claim regularization in service – Plea for regularisation has, in fact been rejected in the judgment of the Division Bench – Order of the Single Judge, quashing the rejection of the representation of the respondent will not amount to a mandamus to regularize the respondent or to treat him in the regular employment of the State – All that the High Court will be construed to have held is that once the respondent was reinstated in service following the earlier order, his services could not have been dispensed with without an order of termination in accordance with law – In the absence of an order of termination, the respondent may be treated to be in the employment of the State, albeit on a daily wage basis – Furthermore, his services were discontinued due to the pendency of a criminal case – Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules 1985 – r. 22. Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The initial appointment of the respondent in pursuance of the proceedings of the Departmental Selection Committee held on 24 February 1991, was on a daily wage basis. The Minutes categorically indicate that against the six posts available for selection against regular vacancies, the Committee selected six candidates and indicated the names of two more candidates having regard to the probable vacancies which were likely to arise during the recruitment year. However, the Selection Committee noted that the office of the District Registrar had engaged daily wagers as registration clerks. Eleven such persons were engaged, including the respondent. Before this Court, it was asserted by the State that the respondent was not engaged on a regular basis. The respondent contended that his appointment was on a regular basis and not as a daily wager. This Court remanded the proceedings to the High Court for considering whether the appointment was made in a manner consistent with Rule 22 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules 1985. The High Court concluded that the appointment was not in breach of Rule 22 of the Rules. Consequently, the order of termination was set aside with a direction for grant of consequential benefits. There is no finding of fact to the effect that the appointment of the respondent was on a regular basis. The record clearly indicates that the initial engagement was only on a daily wage basis. [Para 16] [597-E-H; 598-A-B]
1.2 The services of the respondent were discontinued due to the pendency of a criminal case. This led the respondent to institute fresh proceedings, in which, there was an interim order in his favour. However, the significant fact which emerges from the record is that the engagement of the respondent at all material times was only as a daily wager and, there is no order by which he was treated to be in the regular service of the District Registrar. The order by which the respondent was disengaged was challenged before the High Court, which culminated in the judgment of the Division Bench. [Para 17, 18] [598-B-D]
1.3 The status of the respondent at all material times has been of a daily wage employee. He has not been appointed on a regular basis. He has no vested right to claim regularization in service. The plea for regularisation has in fact been rejected in the judgment of the Division Bench. The order of the Single Judge, quashing the rejection of the representation of the respondent will not amount to a mandamus to regularize the respondent or to treat him in the regular employment of the State. All that the High Court will be construed to have held is that once the respondent was reinstated in service following the earlier order his services could not have been dispensed with without an order of termination in accordance with law. In the absence of an order of termination, the respondent may be treated to be in the employment of the State, albeit on a daily wage basis. [Para 19] [598-E-G]
1.4 The engagement of the respondent is as a daily wage employee. The respondent has not been appointed on a regular basis in the services of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Any arrears of wages that are due and payable to the respondent on that basis shall be computed and paid over to him within the stipulated period. [Para 21] [599-B-C]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.