CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHOPAL AND ORS. versus M/S. LEENA JAIN AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 169 · Decided: 20-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHOPAL AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MIS. LEENA JAIN AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 20, 2006 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Regularization-Claim of, by contractual employees on the ground of 
having worked for considerable length of time-Tribunal directing employer C 
to consider their case-Writ petition by employer dismissed-On appeal, 
held, matter requires consideration in the light of decision in Uma Devi's 
case-Remitted to High Court. 
Respondents had been working as Data Entry Operator on contract basis D 
and were paid on hourly basis. They claimed regularization on the ground 
that they had been working since long period. Tribunal directed the appellant 
for considering their case. Aggrieved appellant filed writ petition before High 
Court, which was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court for fresh E 
consideration in the light of decision in *Uma Devi's case, the Court. 
HELD: While directing that appointments, temporary or casual be 
regularized or made permanent, courts are swayed by the fact that the 
concerned person has worked for some time and in some cases for a 
considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an F 
engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature 
of his employment. He accepts the employment with eyes open. It may be true 
that he is not in a position to bargain - not at arms length - since he might 
have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and 
accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appreciate 
to Jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that G 
a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to 
be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of 
public appointment which is not permissible. If the Court were to void a 
contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were 
169 
H 
170 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the court to grant 
any relief to that employee. A person who enters a temporary employment or 
engages as a contractual or casual worker and whose engagement is not 
based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, 
is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or 
B contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate 
expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post 
could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in 
consultation with Public Service Commission. 
[171-G; 172-A-B; G-H; 173-A-B) 
*Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors., [2006) 
c 4 sec 1, relied on. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.5074of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16-7-2003 of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. No.197411998. 
Vikas Singh, A.S.G., Shiva Lakshmi, Amrita Narayan, Pritesh Kapoor and 
B.V. Balaram Das for the appellants. 
Amitesh Kumar and Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Respondents. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT P ASAY AT, J. Leave granted. 
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of 
the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 1974of1998. 
F Appellants had challenged the composite order dated 13. lL 1997 passed in 
OA No. 691 of 1995 and O.A. No.89 of 1996 passed by the Central 
. Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, at Jabalpur (in short the 'CAT'). 
The respondents moved the CAT under Section 19 of the Administrative 
Tribunals' Act, 1985 (in short the 'Act') seeking regularization of their services. 
G 
Stand of the respondents before the CJ\..T was that they have been 
performing their duties as Data Entry Operators on contract basis and were 
being paid at a rate of Rs. I 0 per hour up to the maximum of Rs.50 per day. 
Since they have been working since a long period they sought for regularization 
placing reliance on the factum of long rendition of service. 
H 
In response, present appellants contended that the respondents were 
--
CHIEF COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, BHOPAL 1·. LEENA JAIN [PASAYA T, J.] 
171 
not departmental employees and their grievances cannot be agitated before A 
the CAT. Placing reliance on some other decisions by the CAT, the 

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