CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS. versus SMT. SUSHEELA PRASAD AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 585 · Decided: 27-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
j 
CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SMT. SUSHEELA PRASAD AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 27, 2007 
B 
[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT AND 
LOKESHW AR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Service Law-Regularization of service-Of contract 
employees-On the ground of long rendition of service-Courts below c 
directing consideration of their regularization-On appeal, held: 
Matter remitted to High Court for considering the matter in the light 
ofUma Devi's case. 
The respondents (employees on contact basis) had filed application D 
before Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking regularization of their 
services on the ground oflong rendition of service. The Tribunal directed 
for considering their cases for appointment on regular basis. Writ petition 
against the order was dismissed by High Court. 
E 
In appeal to this Court appellant-employer contended that the 
order was contrary to the law laid down by Supreme Court in *Secretary, 
State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors., [2006) 4 SCC 1. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the 
F 
.,, 
Court 
HELD: 1. The question of regularization on the ground oflong 
rendition of service was the subject matter in Uma Devi's case. 
Therefore, the matter is remitted to the High Court to consider the case 
afresh in the light of the said decision. [Paras 8 and 9) [587-B; 590-A] G 
Secretary, State o.f Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors., [2006) 
4sec1, followed. 
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal and Ors. v. Lama Jain 
585 
H 
586 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A and Ors .. [2006 J 11 sec 350, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5422 of 
2007. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.7.2005 of the High 
B Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. (S) No. 13440/2004. 
c 
R. Mohan. A.S.G. and B.V. Balaram Das for the Appellants. 
Ravindra Srivastava and B.K. Satija for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench 
of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition 
D No.13440 of 2004. The appellants had challenged the composite order 
dated 13.11.1997 passed in OA No.69111995 and OA No.89/1996 by 
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (in short 
'CAT'). The respondents had moved CAT under Section 19 of the 
Administrative Tribunals Act. 1985 (in short 'the Act') seeking 
E regularization of their services. 
3. The stand of the respondents before the CAT was that they have 
been on duties as Data Entry Operators on contract basis and were being 
paid at a rate ofRs.10 per hour up to the maximum of Rs.50/- per day. 
They have sought for regularization placing reliance on the factum of long 
F rendition of service. 
4. In response, the present appellants contended that the respondents 
were not departmental employees and their grievances cannot be agitated 
before the CAT. Placing reliance on some other decisions rendered by 
G the CAT, the stand of the present appellants was turned down and direction 
was given for considering their cases for appointment on regular basis. 
5. A writ petition was filed before the High Court, by the appellants 
which was dismissed by the impugned order. 
H 
6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants 
{ 
CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. 
587 
SUSHEELA PRASAD (PASA YAT, J.] 
submitted that the decision of the High Court is contrary to law as laid A 
down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Secretary v. State of 
Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors., (2006] 4 SCC I. 
7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted 
that since the CAT had relied on an earlier judgment and High Court rightly B 
did not find any distinguishable feature, the appeal, therefore, deserves 
to be dismissed. 
8. The question of regularization on the ground oflong rendition of 
service was the subject matter in Uma Devi's case (supra). The said issue 
has been elaborately dealt with in the judgment. It was inter alia held as C 
follows: 
"33. It is not necessary to notice all the decisions of this Court on 
this aspect. By and large what emerges is that regular recruitment 
should be insisted upon, only in a contingency and ad hoc D 
appointment can be made in a permanent vacancy, but the same 
should soon be followed by a regular recruitment and that 
appointments to nonavailable posts should not be taken

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.