NIHAL SINGH & OTHERS versus STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 11 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 07-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. GOKHALE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 11 S.C.R. 1 
NIHAL SINGH & OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 1059 of 2005) 
AUGUST 7, 2013 
[H.L. GOKHALE AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
. Service Law -
Regularisation -
Appointment of 
appellants ex-servicemen as Special Police Officers (SPOs) 
A 
B 
in terms of the procedure uls. 17 of the Act - Claim of C 
appellants for regularisation - Rejected - Legality - Held: 
Recruitment of appellants was made in the background of 
terrorism prevailing in the State of Punjab at that time -
Decision to resort to procedure uls. 17 was taken at the highest 
level of the State by conscious choice to provide necessary 
c:5 
security to the pµblic sector banks - Process of selection 
adopted in identifying the appellants was not unreasonable 
or arbitrary - From the mere fact that payment of wages came 
from the bank at whose disposal the services of each of the 
.appellants was kept did not render the appellants employees 
E 
of those banks - Appointment of appellants was made by the 
State and disciplinary control vested with the State, the two 
factors which conclusively establish relationship of master 
and servant between the State and the appellants - No 
justification for the State to take defence, after permitting 
utilisation of the services of appellants for decades, that there 
F 
were no sanctioned posts to absorb the appellants -
Sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven - State has to 
create them by a conscious choice on the basis of rational 
assessment of the need -
Failure of the executive 
government to apply its mind and take a decision to create 
G 
posts or stop extracting work from persons such as the 
appellants for decades together itself would be arbitrary 
action (inaction) on the part of the State - On facts, creation 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 11 S.C.R. 
A of new posts would not create any additional financial burden 
to the State as the various banks at whose disposal the 
services of the appellants was made available had agreed to 
bear the burden - If absorbing the appellants into the services 
of the State and providing benefits at par with the police 
B officers of similar rank employed by the State results in further 
financial commitment it is always open for the State to 
demand the banks to meet such additional burden - State 
Government directed to regularise the services of the 
appellants by creating necessary posts - Police Act, 1861 -
c ss.17 and 18. 
Service Law - New posts - Creation of - Assessment of 
ne~~ - Examination by Constitutional Court not baffed. 
"''· 
Service Law - New posts - Creation of - Considerations 
D for - Discussed. 
There was a large scale disturbance in the State of 
Punjab in 1980s and the State was not in a position to 
handle the prevailing law and order situation with the 
available police personnel. Therefore, the State of Punjab 
E resorted to recruitment under section 17 of the Police Act, 
1861 which enabled appointment of Special Police 
Officers (SPOs). The appellants, who were ex-servicemen, 
were recruited as SPOs. 
F 
Subsequently, the appellants approached the High 
Court praying that their services be regularized. The writ 
petition was dismissed directing consideration of the 
cases of the appellants in accordance with the law. 
Pursuant to the directions, the Senior Superintendent of 
G Police (SSP) purported to consider the cases of the 
appellants and passed order rejecting their claim on the 
ground that the appellants were working as guards with 
various banks and their wages were being paid by such 
banks and, therefore, their claim for regularization, if any, 
H 
NIHAL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
3 
lay only to the concerned bank but not to the police A 
departrnent. 
Challenging the said order, the appellants once 
again approached the High Court in a Writ Petition which 
was dismissed on the basis of an earlier judgment of the 
8 
High Court in Letter Patent Appeal No.209 of 1992 filed 
by persons similarly situated as the appellants, wherein 
the High Court had rejected the claim of the SPOs for 
regularization. Hence the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
c 
HELD:1.1. The appointment of all the appellants was 
made by the SSP in exercise of the statutory power under 
section 17 of the Police Act, 1861. The powers, privileges 
and obligations of the SPOs appointed in exercise of the 0 
powers under section 17 of the Act are specified in 
section 18. It is obvious both from the said secti

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