PINAKI CHATTERJEE & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 368 · Decided: 31-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 5 S.C.R. 368 
.. 
A 
PINAKI CHATTERJEE & ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2053 of 2009) 
B 
MARCH 31, 2009 
~ 
[S.S. SINHA AND DR.MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
Service Law - Regularization - Of employees appointed 
on a casual basis in ex-cadre post for a temporary project -
c Held: The appointment was not regular- It was for project work 
in ex-cadre post and not in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 
and recruitment rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of 
Constitution - Employees not entitled to be regularized -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16 and proviso to 
r 
D Article 309 - Railway Board Circular dated 11.5.1973. 
~ 
The appellants were directly appointed in Group 'C' 
posts in Railway Electrification Project. The question for 
consideration before this court was whether their 
E services could have been regularized in Group 'C' posts. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. Appellants, indisputably, were appointed 
as daily rated casual labourers for project work. The said 
F project having been undertaken for electrification of 
\_ 
Railways was a time bound one. It did not have its own 
... 
cadre. Engagement of any casual labour under the said 
project, therefore, did not amount to any regular 
recruitment. Appellants furthermore have not been 
G appointed upon compliance of the provisions of Articles 
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and/or the 
recruitment rules framed under the proviso appended to 
Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It may be that the 
Railway Administration had committed serious illegalities 
H 
368 
PINAKI CHATTERJEE & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & 
369 
ORS. 
in making recruitment directly to the said posts, the same A 
by itself would not confer any right upon the appellants 
for being regularized in Group 'C' post. [Para 8) [372-G-
H; 373-A-B] 
1.2. Furthermore, the appellants have not produced 8 
their offers of appointment. If they were appointed only 
for the project work and that too in ex-cadre posts, the 
same would never mean that they had been appointed 
on a regular basis. It has not been shown that temporary 
status either had been or could be granted to the C 
appellants. [Para 9) [376-C] 
1.3. The Board Circular dated 11.5.1973 whereon 
reliance had been placed by the appellants, had been 
issued long back, however, did not take into 
consideration the limitation of power of a State to make D 
appointments in total disregard of mandatory provisions 
of the recruitment rules and/or the constitutional 
provision. [Paras 8 and 9] [373·E·F; 374-G) 
Secretary, State of Kamataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 i; 
sec 1, followed. 
A. Umaranl v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Ors. 
(2004) 7 SCC 112; Official Liquidator v. f)ayanand and Ors. 
(2008) 10 SCC 1 and Union of India v. Moti Lal (1996) 7 SCC 
481, relied on. 
F 
Case Law Reference: 
(2004) 7 sec 112 
Rolied on. 
Para 9 
(200&) 4 sec 1 
Followed, 
Par11 9 
G 
(2oos) 1 o sec 1 
Relied on. 
P11ril 10 
(1996) 1 sec 481 
Relied on. 
P;na 11 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ; Civil Appeal No, 
H 
370 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 
A 2053 of 2009. 
B 
From the Judgment & Order dated 1.04.2003 of the 
Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. 
(C) No. 3377 of 2001. 
S.B. Sanyal and Ranjan Mukhorjee for the Appellant. 
K. Amareswari, Shreekant N. Terdal (not present), Anjani 
Aiyagari, B. Krishna Prasad, Lalit Kohli and Manoj Swarup & 
Co., for the Respondents. 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The right of the appellants herein, if any, to be 
regularized in Class 'C' Services of the Railways is the question 
D involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order 
of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi whereby and 
whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellants against the 
orc!er of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, 
Circuit Ranchi passed in OA No.604 of 1997 and OA No.398 
E of 1998, was dismissed. 
3. Appellants were directly appointed in Group 'C' posts 
except serial No.5 in the Electrical Department of the Railway 
Electrification Project. As despite working for a long time, their 
services were not regularized, they filed two original 
F applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, 
Circuit Bench, Ranchi, praying, inter alia, for a direction upon 
the respondents to finalise their regular absorption in the 
services in grade 'C' posts a

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