LexSECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. versus UMADEVI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. v. UMADEVI AND ORS. APRIL 10, 2006 [Y .K. SABHARW AL, CJ., ARUN KUMAR, G .P. MA THUR, C.K. THAKKER AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] Service Law: A B Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 16, 21, 23, 226 and 309. C Public employment-Daily wage temporary employees-Right of regularization or permanent absorption-Doctrine of legitimate expectation-- Applicability of-Temporary Government employees engaged on daily wages Claim for regularization with all the benefits applicable to regular employees lfn the basis that they worked for more than IO years-Such employees were D engaged for the first time in the years 1985-86 inspite of orders not to make such appointments issued in the year 1984-Administrative Tribunal dismissed their claim for regularization-However High Court held that the said employees were entitled to wages equal to the salary and allowances that were being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in Government E service with effect ji-0111 the dates ji-om which they were respectively appointed- Correctness of-Held: There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service-Doctrine of legitimate expectation is not applicable in such cases-Employment on daily wages did not amount to forced labour-State action in not regularizing such employees was not unfair within theji-amework of the rule of law-Hence, a mandamus could not be issued in favour of the employees direr:ting the Government to make them permanent since the employees could not show that they have an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the State has a legal duty to make them permanent-Administrative Law. Doctrines: "Doctrine of Legiti1nate Expectation"-Explained The respondents were temporarily engaged on daily wages in the 953 F G H 954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 3 S.C.R. A Commercial Taxes Department and claimed that they worked in the department based on such engagement for more than lO years and hence they were entitled to be made permanent employees of the department entitled to all the benefits of regular employees. They were engaged for the first time in the years 1985-86 inspite of orders not to make such appointments issued in B the year 1984. The Administrative Tribunal dismissed their claim for regularization. However, the High Court held that the respondents were entitled to wages equal to the salary and allowances that were being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in Government service with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. Hence the appeal. C On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that on the basis of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the respondents should be directed to be regularized; that the rights of the respondents thus appointed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution were violated; that employment on daily wages amounted to forced labour; that a mandamus be issued in favour of such persons; and that the State action in not regularizing the respondents was D not fair within the framework of the rule of law. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Public employment in a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic has to be as set down by the Constitution and the laws made E thereunder. Our constitutional scheme envisages employment by the Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf. Equality of opportunity is the hall mark and the Constitution has provided also for affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated equals. Thus, any public employment has to be in terms of the constitutional F scheme. (967-A-BJ 2. A sovereign Government, considering the economic situation in the country and the work to be got done, is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages. Going by a law newly enacted i.e. The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005; the object G is to give employment, to at least one member of a family for hundred days in a year, on paying wages as fixed under that Act. But, a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to, when regular vacancies in posts, at a particular point of time, are to be filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a manner or b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.