LexVINOD KUMAR & ORS. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230 : 2024 INSC 332 Vinod Kumar & Ors. Etc. v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5153-5154 of 2024) 30 January 2024 [Vikram Nath* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The Tribunal’s judgment negated the appellants’ plea for regularization and absorption into the posts of ‘Accounts Clerk’ against which they were temporarily appointed. The High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal. Headnotes Service Law – Regularization – Temporary appointment – The appellants’ pleaded for regularization and absorption into the posts of ‘Accounts Clerk’ against which they were temporarily appointed: Held: The essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time – The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement – Moreover, the appellants’ promotion process was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their employment status – The appellants’ service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status – The failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations – Thus, the judgment of the High Court set aside. [Paras 5, 8, 9] [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1231 Vinod Kumar & Ors. Etc. v. Union of India & Ors. Case Law Cited Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [2006] 3 SCR 953 : (2006) 4 SCC 1 – distinguished. List of Keywords Service law; Regularization; Temporary appointment; Continuous service; Permanent post; Principles of equity, Fairness; Employment regulations; Service conditions; Reclassification; Regular status. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5153-5154 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 42692 and 42688 of 2001 Appearances for Parties Ajayveer Singh, Ms. Divya Garg, Uday Ram Bokadia, Shubham Tomar, Ms. Deepika Jain, Atit Jain, Ajay Jain, Sonal Jain, Advs. for the Appellants. K. Parameshwaran, Mrs. Sakshi Kakkar, Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Amrish Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order Vikram Nath, J. Leave granted. 2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30.03.2016, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42688 of 2001 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42692 of 2001, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, dated 21.11.2001 were dismissed. The Tribunal’s judgment negated the appellants’ plea for regularization and absorption into the posts of ‘Accounts Clerk’ against which they were temporarily appointed. Despite being appointed for what was termed a temporary or scheme- 1232 [2024] 1 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports based engagement, the appellants have been continuously working in these positions from 1992 till the present, spanning a period exceeding 25 years. 3. Pursuant to a notification dated 21.02.1991, the appellants were initially appointed to ex-cadre posts of Accounts Clerks after a selection process involving written tests and viva voce interviews. After the rejection of their representation for regularization to the Divisional Railway Manager in 1999, the appellants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Applications. The Tribunal vide order dated 21.11.2001 dismissed the applications of the appellants, concluding that their appointments were temporary and for a specific scheme, thus not entitling them to regularization or absorption into permanent posts. Thereafter, the appellants approached the High Court and the High Court u
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.