LexNARENDRA KUMAR TIWARI & ORS. ETC. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
412
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
NARENDRA KUMAR TIWARI & ORS. ETC.
v.
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7423-7429 of 2018)
AUGUST 01, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law – Regularisation of daily wage or contract
workers – Appellants were irregularly appointed by the State of
Jharkhand – Plea of Appellants that they had put in more than 10
years of service and therefore were entitled to be regularised – Plea
rejected by the High Court – Further, High Court took the view that
the decision of the Supreme Court in Umadevi (3) case did not
permit regularisation of appellants since they had not worked for
10 years on the cut-off date of 10.04.2006 when the Constitution
Bench rendered its decision – Held: High Court erred in taking an
impractical view of the directions in case of Umadevi (3) – The
purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi(3) was to prevent
irregular or illegal appointments in the future and further to confer
a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past –
A strict and literal interpretation of Umadevi(3), without
considering the spirit of the decision would make regularisation of
the irregular employees very difficult since the State of Jharkhand
came into existence only on 15.11.2000 and cut-off date was fixed
as 10.04.2006 – Thus, the Regularisation Rules must be given a
pragmatic interpretation and appellants, if they had completed 10
years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation
Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them
– Jharkhand Sarkar ke Adhinasth Aniyamit Rup se Niyukt Ewam
Karyat Karmiyo ki Sewa Niyamitikaran Niyamawali, 2015.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and
Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors. was intended to put a full stop to the
somewhat pernicious practice of irregularly or illegally appointing
daily wage workers and continuing with them indefinitely. The
purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi(3) was therefore
two-fold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in
[2018] 9 S.C.R. 412
412
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
413
the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had
been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of
Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost
a decade after the decision in Umadevi(3) is a clear indication
that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular
appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of
the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were
irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation
of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation
and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is
precisely what Umadevi (3) and Kesari sought to avoid.
[Paras 6, 8] [415-D; 417-B-D]
2. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit
of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3), is to be
taken into consideration then no irregularly appointed employee
of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that
State came into existence only on 15th November, 2000 and the
cut-off date was fixed as 10th April, 2006. In other words, in this
manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing
irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary
to the intent of the Constitution Bench. [Para 9] [417-E-F]
3. Under the circumstances, the Jharkhand Regularisation
Rules of 2015 must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the
appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the
date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be
given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have
completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless
there is some valid objection to their regularisation like
misconduct etc. [Para 11] [417-G-H; 418-A-B]
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi(3)
and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 : [2006] 3 SCR 953 ;
Umadevi(3) in State of Karnataka and Ors. v. M.L.
Kesari and Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 247 : [2010] 9 SCR
543 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2006] 3 SCR 953
referred to
Para 3
[2010] 9 SCR 543
referred to
Para 5
NARENDRA KUMAR TIWARI & ORS. v. STATE OF
JHARKHAND & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
414
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
Nos. 7423-7429 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.11Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.