CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS, DEHRADUN AND ORS. versus DHANI RAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 233 · Decided: 10-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

- >-. 
' _j 
CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS, DEHRADUN AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
DHANI RAM AND ORS. 
JULY l 0, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] B 
Service law: 
Casual labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) 
Scheme of Government of India, 1993: Clause 4: 
C 
Regularization of services of casual labourers-Regularization 
Scheme-Applicability of-Held: Jn terms of Clause 4 of the Scheme, temporary 
status Could be granted by the Government to the causal labourers who were 
in employment as on the date of Commencement of the Scheme and completed D 
one year of continuous senice-However, it does not appear to be a genera! 
guideline to be applied for the purpose of granting temporary status to all 
the casual workers as and when they complete one year of continuous 
service-Union Government, as and when it found necessary, could formulate 
such Scheme to grant temporary status. 
Respondents were engaged as casual labourers in the office of the 
Controller of the Defence Accounts during the period 1989-95. A Scheme 
for regularization of casual labourers called "Casual Labourers (Grant of 
Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993 
came into force with effect from 1. 9.1993. The respondents were disengaged 
E 
as there was no work available for them. They filed the writ petition for F 
directions to the employer for regularization of their services. The High Court 
disposed of the writ petitions holding that they were to be considered for 
regularization. A review petition field by the employer was dismissed by the 
High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-employer contended that the High Court's decision is clearly G 
conttary to the decision of this Court in the matter of Union of India & Anr. 
v. Mohan Pal & Anr., (20021 4 SCC 573 and, therefore, unsustainable. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
233 
H 
234 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 8 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: In order to acquire "temporary" status, the casual labourer 
should have been in employment as on the date of commencement of th' 
Regularisation Scheme and he should have also rendered a continuous serviCe . 
of at least one year which means that he should have been engaged for a period 
of at least 240 days in a year or 206 days in case of offices observing 5 days 
a week. From clause 4 of the Scheme, it does not appear to be a general 
B guideline to be applied for the purpose of giving "temporary" status to ali the 
casual workers, as and when they complete one year continuous service. Of 
course, it is up to the Union Government to formulate any scheme as and when 
it is found necessary that the casual labourers are to be given "temporary" 
status and later they are to be absorbed in Group "D" posts. Under the 
C circumstances, the orders of the High Court are clearly unsustainable. 
(Para 12 and 14) (236-C·E, G) 
Union of India and Anr. v. Mohan Pal and Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 573; 
Union of India v. Gagan Kumar, JT (2005) 6 SC 410 and Director General, 
Doordarshan, Mandi House, New Delhi & Ors. v. Manas Dey and Ors., (2005) 
p 
13 sec 437, relied on. . 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2940-2941 of 
2007. 
From the Final Judgment & Order dated 16.4.2003 and 28.8.2004 of the 
High Court ofUttaranchal at Nainital in W.P. No. 939 (SB) of2002 and Rev. 
E Appln.No. 7323/2003 in CM.W.P. No. 939(SB)/2002. 
R. Mohan, ASG., SWft Qadri, R.C. Kathia, and Anil Katiyar for the 
Appellants. 
· 
. Rajesh K. Sharma and Shalu Sharma for the Respondents. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by A learned Single 
G Judge of the Uttranchal High Court in Writ Petition No.939 (SB) of2002 dated 
16.4.2003 and the order on the review petition dated 28.8. 2004 . 
. ,. 
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
4~ Respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming that 
H they shoul~ be considered for regularization and should be paid minimum of 
)•' 
CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS, DEHRADUN v. OHAN! RAM [PASA VAT, J.] 235 
- ),.--· 
pay scale. The respondents were engaged as casual labourers in the office A 
of the Controller of the Defence Accounts during the period 1989-95. The 
nature of the engagement was casual/seasonal depending upon the availability 
of the work. 
5. A scheme called "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and 
Regularisation) Scheme of Gove
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.