JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND ANR. versus NANU RAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 544 · Decided: 24-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND ANR. 
v. 
NANU RAM AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 24, 2006 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Regularization- Respondents-workmen were engaged for temporary 
C construction work on muster roll-They completed two years of service after 
31. 3.1982-They claimed regularization-On 26. 9.1983, Screening Committee 
constituted for considering regularization of casual workmen who had 
completed two years service prior to 31.3.1982- Since respondents had 
completed two years of service after 31. 3.1982, they were regularized on the 
D basis of recommendations of Screening Committee w.e.f 1.4.1989-Challenge 
against, on the ground of discrimination-Held, There was no question of 
discrimination of the present respondents with the case of the workmen who 
got regularized prior to 3.3.1982-Mere completion of two years was not the 
only criteria-For determining the eligibility for regularization, Screening 
Committee is required to examine the question as to how many workman 
E could be regularized, budget provisions, availability of posts number of 
muster roll workers engaged in the construction work without there being 
in existence vacant sanctioned posts, manner in which they were initially 
recruited with or without approval of management. 
Regularization and conferment of permanence in service jurisprudence-
F Distinction between -Reiterated 
Pay scale-Question of grant of regular pay scale is directly linked to 
regularization. 
The facts pertaining to CA No. 254/2004 are that the respondents-
G workmen were engiJged for temporary construction work on muster roll on 
daily wage basis. They completed two years of service after 3 I.3.1982. On 
completion thereof, they claimed regularization in terms of Arbitration award 
dated 31.05.1978. In the said award it was stipulated that fixation in the regular 
pay scale for employees recruited on or after 1.4.1978 shall be regularized 
H 
544 
JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD:V NANU RAM 
545 
by recruitment policy to be detailed in the subsequent award, Second award A 
was accordingly published on 15.06.1979 which stipulated that workman 
engaged between 1.4.1979 and 30.6.1979 would be screened and if found 
satisfactory, would be regularized. In terms of above two award~, the State 
Government constituted Screening Committees from time to time. The above~.; 
two awards stood terminated w.e.f. 29.6.1985. 
On 26.9.1983, a Screening Committee was constituted for considering 
regularization of casual and daily rated workmen who had completed two years 
service prior to 31.3.1982. Since respondents had completed t~o_years of 
service after 31.3.1982, they were regularized on the basis o{ 
recommendations of Screening Committee w.e.f. 1.4.1989. 
The respondents sought regularization from the prior date i.e. 1.4.1982. 
The dispute was referred to Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the 
claim of respondents on the ground that there was no reason to discriminate 
workmen who had completed two years service by 31.3.1982 and those who 
completed it by 31.3.1983. The High Court upheld the order ofTribtmal. 
In C.A. No. 1042/06 filed by the sole respondent, the High Court had 
directed the management to treat the respondent as regularized w.e.f. 1.4.1983 
subject to vacancies available for regularization. Respondent contended that 
he had never asked for reguladziation and that he had only sought regular 
B 
c 
D 
pay scale w.e.f 1.4.1983. 
. E 
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter for de novo consideration, 
the Court 
HELD: (C.A. No. 254/04) 1.1. There is a vital distinction between· 
regularization and conferment of permanence in service jurisprudence. The p 
word "regular" or "regularization" do not connote permanence. They cannot 
be construed to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments. They 
are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant 
to cure defects in the method of appointments. (550-B-Cl 
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) & Ors., [2006) G 
4 sec 1, relied on. 
1.2. Applying the above test to the facts of the present case, the 
Screening Committee was required to examine the question as to how many 
workmen could be regularized, keeping in mind the budget provisions, 
availability of the posts, the number of muster roll workers engaged in the H 
546 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. · _ 
A construction work without there being in existe

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