UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus ILMO DEVI & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 1158 · Decided: 07-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 1158
1158
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
ILMO DEVI & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5689-5690 of 2021)
OCTOBER 07, 2021
[M.R. SHAH AND A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Regularization – Respondents-part time
employees sought regularization – Claim rejected by Central
Administrative Tribunal, though with certain directions – Writ
petitions filed by both the parties – High Court inter alia directed the
appellants to reformulate regularization policy and to take a decision
to sanction the post in a phased manner – On appeal, held:
Respondents were working as contingent paid part-time sweepers
(Safai Karamcharies working for less than five hours a day) in a
Post Office – There are no sanctioned posts of Safaiwalas in the
Post Office in which the respondents were working – No
documentary evidence is on record to prove that the respondents
worked continuously – Directions issued by the High Court are
beyond the power of the judicial review – Further, respondents are
not entitled for the benefit of regularization even under the
Department’s regularization policy dtd. 30.06.14 which though is
in consonance with the law laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka
& Ors. Vs. Umadevi and Ors. reported as [2006] 3 SCR 953, but does
not apply to the part-time workers who do not work on the sanctioned
post – Nobody can claim regularization as a matter of right dehors
the regularization policy – Impugned judgment set aside –
Constitution of India – Art.226.
Constitution of India – Art.226 – Judicial Review –
Regularization – Held: Regularization policy to regularize the
services of the employees working on temporary status and/or casual
labourers is a policy decision – Court cannot issue mandamus and/
or issue mandatory directions in judicial review to do so.
Service Law – Government Institution – Part-time employees,
parity with regular employees – Held: Part-time temporary
employees in a Government run institution cannot claim parity in
salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle
of equal pay for equal work.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1159
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The respondents-original applicants were
working as contingent paid part-time sweepers (Safai
Karamcharies working for less than five hours a day) in a Post
Office at Chandigarh. There are no sanctioned posts of Safaiwalas
in the Post Office in which the respondents were working. There
is no documentary evidence on record to establish and prove
that the respondents were working continuously. Even it is not
the case on behalf of the respondents that their appointment was
done after following due procedure of selection and to that extent,
it cannot be said that their appointments were irregular. As such
in the absence of any sanctioned posts in the Post Office in which
the respondents were working, there was no question of
appointing the respondents after following due procedure.
Pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal and the order passed
in the contempt proceedings, the appellants came out with a
regularization policy dated 30.06.2014. The aforesaid
regularization policy has been framed considering the decision
of this Court in the case of Umadevi. That thereafter pursuant to
the interim order passed by the High Court dated 06.08.2014,
the appellant authorities reconsidered the claim of the
respondents herein as per the regularization policy dated
30.06.2014 and the same came to be rejected vide communication
dated 11.09.2014 mainly on the ground that there are no
sanctioned posts and the employees have not completed ten
years of service as on 10.04.2006. [Paras 8-8.2][1168-C-E, F;
1169-C-D]
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi and
Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1: [2006] 3 SCR 953 – referred to.
1.2 The respondents served as part-time employees and
were contingent paid staff. There are no sanctioned posts in the
Post Office in which the respondents were working, therefore,
the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment
and order are not permissible in the judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution. The High Court cannot, in exercise of
the power under Article 226, issue a Mandamus to direct the
Department to sanction and create the posts. The High Court, in
exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution,
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. ILMO DEVI & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
also cannot direct the Government

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