LexUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus KARTICK CHANDRA MONDAL AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 1099 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. KARTICK CHANDRA MONDAL AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 2090 of 2007) JANUARY 15, 2010 [J.M. PANCHAL AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] A B Service Law - Re-engagement and regularization - Absorption -Respondents recruited as casual labourers in C 1981 - Disengaged in 1983 on ground that they were not recruited through Employment Exchange, the extant policy at the relevant time - Application seeking re-engagement and regularisation - Reliance placed on Government of India notification dated 07-05-1985 which provided for relaxation of D condition of .recruitment of casual workers through Employment Exchanges - Tribunal directed absorption of respondent in suitable post commensurate with their qualifications - Directions affirmed by High Court - On appeal, held: The notification dated 07-05-1985 was intended E to operate prospectively and not with retrospective effect - It could not be made applicable to respondents since they ·ere I not working on the date the notification was issued - The internal communications relied upon by respondents, were ex facie, exchanged between officers at the level of board F . hierarchy only - No official order was passed by competent authority and therefore High Court was not justified in directing absorption of respondents on the basis of said internal communications - Misplaced sympathy was shown in case of respondents though they worked only for two years - If an appointment is made illegally or irregularly, the same cannot G be the basis of further appointment - Re-appointment or absorption of respondents would be in violation of the settled law. 1099 H 1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 1 S.C.R. A Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Guarantee of equality before law enshrined in the Article is a positive concept - It cannot be enforced in a negative manner. Interpretation of Statutes - Courts cannot read anything 8 into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous - When language of the enactment is clear and unambiguous, it would not be proper for the courts to add any words thereto and evolve some legislative intent, not found in the statute. Circulars/Government Orders/Notification - Notification C - Retrospective effect of - When permissible - Held: Unless and until there is a clear intention expressed in the notification that it would also apply retrospectively, the same cannot be given a retrospective effect and would always operate prospectively - Administrative Law. D Circulars/Government Orders/Notification - Deemed Government Order - Held: An order would be deemed to be a Government order as and when it is issued and publicized - Internal communications while processing a matter cannot E be said to be orders issued by the competent authority unless they are issued in accordance with law - Administrative Law. The respondents, engaged as casual labourers in the Ordnance Factory Board, worked for two years (from 1981 to 1983) whereafter they were disengaged from F service on the ground that they were not recruited through the Employment Exchange, the extant policy at the relevant time. The respondents filed application before the Central G Administrative Tribunal, seeking direction to appellant no.1 for their re-engagement and also for regularisation of their service, and in this regard placing reliance upon Government of India notification dated 07-05-1985 issued on the subject of regularisation of casual workers by way H of relaxing the condition of recruitment through UNION OF INDIA AND ANR, v. KARTICK CHANDRA 1101 MON DAL Employment Exchanges only. A The Tribunal directed the appellants to absorb the respondents in any suitable post commensurate with their qualifications. Aggrieved, the appellants flied writ Petition in the High Court which affirmed the directions 8 passed by the Tribunal. In appeal to this Court, the question which arose for consideration was whether the direction to absorb the respondents could have been issued by the Tribunal and the High Court, particularly, in view of the fact that the C respondents were engaged on casual basis without having been recruited through the proper procedure and having not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and having worked with the appellant no. 2 only for two years, i.e., from 1981 to 1983. D Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The respondents worked with the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.