LexSECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI & ORS. versus THIRU R. GOVINDASWAMY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 3 S.C.R. 84 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI & ORS. v. THIRU R. GOVINDASWAMY & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2726-2729 of 2014) FEBRUARY 21, 2014 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] Service Law: Regularisation - Part time sweepers - C Working for more than 10 years sought regularisation of their services by filing writ petitions before the High Court - Writ Petitions allowed - Held: Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him D any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be "litigious employment" - Even temporary, ad hoc or daily- wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post E - Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right - There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees - Part-time temporary employees in government-run F institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work - Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees - The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute." - G However, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, since the department has already implemented the impugned judgment and does not want to disturb the services of the ' respondents, the services of the respondents which stood H 84 SEC. TO GOVT., SCHOOL EDU. DEPT, CHENNAI v. 85 THIRU R. GOVINDASWAMY regularised should not be affected. State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 1806: 2006 (3) SCR 953; Union of India & Ors. v. A. S. Pillai & Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 448; State of Rajasthan & Ors. A v. Daya Lal & Ors. AIR 2011 SC 1193: 2011 (1) SCR 707 - B relied on. Case Law Reference: 2006 (3) SCR 953 (2010) 13 seq 448 2011 (1) SCR 707 Relied on Relied on Relied on Para 4 Para 6 Para 7 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2726-2729 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2012 of the High Court of Madras in WA Nos. 2402, 2403, 2404 and 2405 of 2012. WITH C.A. Nos. 2730-2731 of 2014. · P.P. Rao, Subroamonium Prasad, AAG, M. Yogesh Kanna, A. Santha Kumaran for the Appellants. c D E P.R. Kovilan P., Gettha Kovilan for the Respondent. F The following Order of the Court was delivered DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgments and orders dated 21.11.2012 and 16.11.2012 in Writ Appeal Nos. 2402, 2403 G 2404, 2405 of 2012 and 2555, 2556 of 2012 passed by the High Court of Madras, by which the High Court has regularised the services of part-time sweepers (respondents herein). 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals H 86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 3 S.C.R. A are that' The respondents had been appointed as part-time sweepers by appellant from 1987 till 1993 as their initial appointments had l>een issued to the respondents and others B on 1.12.1987, 2.5.1991, 1.4.1993, 10.4.1993, 27.5.1999 and 19.1.2001. As the respondents and others had been working for more than 10 years, they filed Writ Petition Nos. 17 468, 17470, 17472, 17473, 17469 and 17471 of 2012 before the High Court of Madras for seeking regularisation of their services. The said Writ Petitions were allowed by the common C judgment and order dated 23.7.2012 with the direction to regularise the services of the respondents on full time basis based on the individual representation after verifying their service particulars from the date of completion of 10 years of D service with time scale of pay. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred the writ appeals which were dismissed. Hence, these appeals. E 3. Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants have submitted that a direction to regularise the part- time employees itself is contrary to law and the said direction could not have been issued. It has further been submitted that as the impugned judgments and orders had been complied with F and the appellants are not going to disturb any of the respondents
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.