UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SHEELA RANI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 499 · Decided: 08-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
SHEELA RANI 
DECEMBER 8, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND T ARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Labour Laws-Regularisation-Claim of-Regularisation of casual 
worker with retrospective effect, from the date of iniiial appointment-Held: 
A 
B 
Casual worker cannot be regularised from the date of initial appointment- C 
Regularisation should be prospective and not retrospective-It should be as 
per the relevant Rules-Seniority of regular appointees cannot be ignored. 
The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was whether 
the services of a casual worker can be regularised with retrospective effect 
i.e. from the date of initial appointment 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The regularization of casual worker should be prospective 
and not retrospective. Care must be taken to see that regularization of casual 
worker does not upset the seniorities of regular appointees. (504-DI 
E 
1.2. It is not in dispute that the respondent was engaged as a casual 
worker and the nature of the job assigned to her was to note down .the 
complaints in the enquiry office. She was performing the duties at the enquiry 
office on muster roll as a casual worker to note down day to day complaints. 
Respondent has also not placed any documentary evidence in respect of her F 
claim nor any such evidence is available on record. The date of registration 
of the respondent with the employment exchange is 25.3.1983 whereas the 
respondent is daiming that her name was referred to the appellant-department 
by the employment exchange. The respondent was engaged as casual worker 
on 17.11. 1982, therefore, employment exchange could not have referred as G 
she was registered in employment exchange only on 25.8.1983. The 
respondent's claim, to regularize her services from 17.11.1982 is not correct 
as she was engaged only as casual worker. She was regularized w.e.f. 
26.9.2001 as the regularization of casual worker is covered under the 
relevant Rules. (502-F-H; 503-A-B) 
499 
H 
500 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A 
State of Haryana. v. Jasmer Singh., (1996] 11 SCC 83 and Registrar 
General of India and Anr. v. V. Thippa Setty and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 690, 
relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5666 of2006. 
B 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 28-1-2004 of the High Court 
of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 14 79-82/2005. 
R. Mohan, A.S.G., K. Radha Krishan Sunita Sharma, Shilpa Singh and 
V.K. Verma for the Appellants. 
C 
S.M. Ratanpaul, Arun K. Sinha, Rakesh Singh and Mukesh Kr. Sinha for 
D 
the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHJ\o'IANAN. Leave granted. 
The above appeal is directed against the final order and judgment dated 
28.1.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Writ 
Petition (c) Nos. 1479-1482 of 2005. By the impugned judgment, the High 
Court dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the appellants herein. 
E 
The question of law involved in this appeal is whether the services of 
a casual worker can be regularized with retrospective effect i.e. from the date 
of initial appointment. 
The respondent herein was engaged as a casual worker w.e.f. 17.11.1982 
and since then besides other jobs of casual nature, she has been performing 
F the job of noting down complaints at the enquiry offices/service stations of 
C.P. W.D. The respondent approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the 
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and prayed that she should be regularized 
on the post of enquiry clerk in C.P.W.D. Before the Tribunal, the appellants 
submitted that no post of enquiry clerk was existing nor was there any 
G scheme/rule for regularization in a Group-C post inasmuch as the clerks under 
the appellants are appointed in terms of the recruitment rules and through the 
Staff Selection Commission. It was also submitted that the engagement of the 
respondent was not against any vacancy hence she can not claim regularization 
on a particular post. The Tribunal vide its order dated 13.10.2000, allowed 
O.A.No. 2747/99 with a direction to the appellants herein to consider the 
H regularization of the respondent within four months of the receipt of the 
.... 
~· 
U.0.1. v. SHEELA RANI [LAKSHMANAN, .T.] 
501 
judgment. The respondent herein filed Contempt Petition No. 194 of 200 I in A 
the aforesaid O.A. and alleged non-compliance of the Tribunal's order and 
judgment as the services of the respondent we

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