PREM RAM versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, UTIARAKHAND PEY JAL& NIRMAN NIGAM, DEHRADUNAND ORS.

Citation: [2015] 7 S.C.R. 192 · Decided: 15-05-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[201,&J? S.C.R.192 
A 
P.~EMRAM 
v. 
MANAGING DIRECTOR, UTIARAKHAND PEY JAL& 
NIRMAN NIGAM, DEHRADUNAND ORS. 
B 
(Civil Appeal No. 4474 of 2015) 
MAY 15, 2015 
[T. 5. THAKUR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
c 
Labour Laws: 
Regularization - Claim for- By daily- wager- On the 
ground that the daily-wagers junior to him had been 
regularized - Plea of the employer that the workmen 
0 regularized being work-charged employees, their case was 
distinct from daily-wager - Held: There is no difference 
between the daily-wagers and the work-charged employees 
because, in essence, the nature of theirengagement remains 
the same - Hence both the categories of employees have to 
E be treated on the same footing- Since the employees (work-
charged) were junior to the claimant-employee, regularization 
of the claimant-employee is directed on the analogy of his 
juniors w.e.f. the date, his juniors were regularized and for 
release of all his retiral benefits - However, the direction for 
F regularization would not entitle the claimant-employee to 
claim arrears of salary based on such regularization. 
I• 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. If engagement in a work-charged 
G establishment rest on a criterion, no better than the 
absolute discretion of the authority engaging them or 
the fortuitous circumstances of a vacancy or need in a 
work-charged establishment, then, there is indeed no 
H difference betWeen a daily-wager on the one hand and 
192 
PREM RAM v. M. D., UTTARAKHAND PEY JAL & 
193 
NIRMAN NIGAM, DEHRADUN 
work-charged employees on the other. No distinction A 
can resultantly be made between these two categories 
of employees, for in essence, the nature of their 
engagement remains the same except that in the case 
of work-charged employ~es, the wages/emoluments 
appear to be borne from out of the allocation for the B 
project in which they are employed while in the other 
case there is no such specific allocation of funds. The 
classification of work- charged and other employees 
remains wholly unsatisfactory at least for the purposes 
of the present case leaving no option for the Court but C 
to treat the case of the daily~wagers and work-charge 
employees on the same footi,ng when it comes to 
granting regularization to them. [Para 8) [198-F-H; 199-
A-B] 
D 
2. The persons who were junior to the appellant, 
having been engaged much later than him, steal a march 
over him in terms of regularization in service while the 
appellant remained embroiled in litigation over what was 
eventually found to be an illegal termination of his E 
service. Though the appellant has already 
superannuated, in view of the facts that the appellant 
had been appointed as early as in the year 1988 and had 
by the time the decision of th is-Court in Umadevi's (3) 
F 
case pronounced, already completed more than 1 O 
years service; that Government had formulated rules for 
regularization of such daily-wagers; that neither the 
State Government nor the Jal Nigam has resented the 
idea of regularization of those who have served for over G 
a decade, there is no impediment in directing 
regularization of the service of the appellant on the 
analogy of his juniors with effect from the date his juniors 
were regularized and for the release Qf all retiral benefits 
in his favour on that basis by treating him to be in H 
194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 7 S.C.R. 
A continuous service till the date of his superannuation. 
However, this direction will not entme the appellant to 
claim any amount towards arrears of salary based on 
such regularization. [Para 9) [199-C-H] 
B 
Secretary, State of Kamataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) 
2006 (3) SCR 953: (2006) 4 SCC 1 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
C 2006 (3) SCR 953 
referred to. 
Para 5 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
4474 of2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2011 of the 
o High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 
128of2011. 
Deeptakirti Verma, Neha Sharma for the Appellant. 
Rachana Srivasatava, Utkarsh Sharma for the 
E Respondents. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
T. S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 30th June, 
2011 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nanital 
whereby Special Appeal No.128 of 2011 filed by the appellant 
has been dismissed and the order passed by the learned 
G Single Judge of that Court in Writ Petition 324(MS) of 2004 
affirmed. 
3. The appellant, it appears, wa

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