Case: Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd Vs. Ashok Ranghba Ambre

the proceedings before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution as to permanency and other benefits on that basis, the writ petitioner could not contend that since the action of termination of his services was held to be illegal and he was ordered to be reinstated by Industrial Tribunal and the said Award was confirmed by the High Court, ipso facto, he ought to be treated as permanent employee of the Corporation and must be held entitled to the benefits claimed in the writ petition. To that extent, therefore, the order passed by the High Court is not in consonance with law. 12. Both the parties in this connection referred to several judgments in support of their respective contentions. We do not wish to deal with all those judgments since, in our opinion, law is well settled on the point. But as already noted earlier, the High Court, not only continued the appointment of the writ petitioner but observed that once the appointment was made and the workman was allowed to work for two decades, it would be hard and harsh to deny him the confirmation on the post. 13. The High Court further stated “We, therefore, hold that the petitioner (workman-respondent herein) is entitled to the status of permanent employee of the Corporation and accordingly we make the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) with modification that the petitioner would be entitled to permanency with effect from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 16.3.1992. Petition is accordingly disposed of”. 14. Prayer (a) in the Writ Petition before the High Court reads thus: “(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare the petitioner to be a permanent workman of the respondents in the post of Compounder/Dresser w.e.f. 6.6.1987 and direct the respondents to pay the petitioner all the benefits accruing by virtue of his permanency including fitment with annual increments in the appropriate grade with retrospective effect”. 15. The High Court observed that the writ petitioner was working as Compounder/Dresser right from 1984. It was not disputed that there was requirement of Compounder/Dresser at the Refinery which was working all throughout seven days in a week. It also noted the observation of the Tribunal in earlier Award that if the policy decision was breached in the appointment of the workman, the appointment could not be said to be illegal or prohibited by law. Such appointment would be merely irregular but not illegal. 16. In our opinion, the High Court was in clear error in equating reinstatement of employee in service in earlier proceedings with confirmation and granting status of permanency. Continuation in or regularization of service of an employee and extending the benefit of confirmation or making him permanent are two different concepts. Before more than four decades, in State of Mysore & Anr. v. S.V. Narayanappa, (1967) 1 SCR 128 , setting aside the order passed by the High Court of Mysore, this Court observed that the High Court erroneously proceeded on an assumption that “regularization” meant “permanence”. The Court stated that regularization would not mean that the appointment would have to be considered as permanent. 17. Again, in B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (1979) 4 SCC 507 , orders were passed by the State Government promoting certain officers as Assistant Engineers “on a regular basis”. It was argued that the regularization of the promotion gave it the colour of permanence and the appointments of the promotees as Assistant Engineers must, therefore, be deemed to have been made substantively. The Court held that the words “regular” or “regularization” do not connote “permanence”. They are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to the methodology followed in making the appointments and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments. 18. In the case on hand, according to the appellant-Corporation, the workman was appointed on a purely ad hoc and temporary basis, without following due process of law. His name was never sponsored by the Employment Exchange nor an advertisement was issued for the purpose of filling the post to which the writ petitioner was appointed. Cases of other similarly situated persons were not considered and the appointment was not legal and lawful. In industrial adjudication, an order of termination was quashed as it was not in accordance with law. But that did not mean that the workman had substantive right to hold the post. The High Court was, therefore, wrong in directing the Corporation to make the writ petitioner permanent and to extend him all benefits on that basis from 1992. The said direction, therefore, has to go. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the direction issued by the High Court ordering the appellant-Corporation to make the writ-petitioner (respondent herein) permanent employee of the Corporation and to grant all benefits on that basis with effect from the date of filing of writ petition. 20. We may, however, observe that since the writ petitioner is working with the appellant-Corporation since 1984 and by now, he has completed more than two decades, his case for permanency be considered by the Corporation sympathetically. If there is age bar in considering the case of the writ petitioner for permanent appointment, the appellant-Corporation will not treat the writ petitioner ineligible on that count in view of the fact that he is already in service of the Corporation since 1984. If there are statutory rules/administrative instructions/guidelines which require minimum educational qualification and/or experience, it is open to the Corporation to insist compliance with such rules/instructions/guidelines. But if there is power of relaxation with the Corporation or any of its Officers, the appellant-Corporation will consider that aspect as well keeping in view the fact that the writ petitioner was appointed in 1984, has completed service of more than twenty years and is having rich experience. 21. In the result, the

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The High Court observed that the writ petitioner was working as Compounder/Dresser right from 1984. It was not disputed that there was requirement of Compounder/Dresser at the Refinery which was working all throughout seven days in a week. It also noted the observation of the Tribunal in earlier Award that if the policy decision was breached in the appointment of the workman, the appointment could not be said to be illegal or prohibited by law. Such appointment would be merely irregular but notour opinion, the High Court was in clear error in equating reinstatement of employee in service in earlier proceedings with confirmation and granting status of permanency. Continuation in or regularization of service of an employee and extending the benefit of confirmation or making him permanent are two differentto the appellant-Corporation, the workman was appointed on a purely ad hoc and temporary basis, without following due process of law. His name was never sponsored by the Employment Exchange nor an advertisement was issued for the purpose of filling the post to which the writ petitioner was appointed. Cases of other similarly situated persons were not considered and the appointment was not legal and lawful. In industrial adjudication, an order of termination was quashed as it was not in accordance with law. But that did not mean that the workman had substantive right to hold the post. The High Court was, therefore, wrong in directing the Corporation to make the writ petitioner permanent and to extend him all benefits on that basis from 1992. The said direction, therefore, has toappeal is allowed by setting aside the direction issued by the High Court ordering the appellant-Corporation to make the writ-petitioner (respondent herein) permanent employee of the Corporation and to grant all benefits on that basis with effect from the date of filing of writmay, however, observe that since the writ petitioner is working with the appellant-Corporation since 1984 and by now, he has completed more than two decades, his case for permanency be considered by the Corporation sympathetically. If there is age bar in considering the case of the writ petitioner for permanent appointment, the appellant-Corporation will not treat the writ petitioner ineligible on that count in view of the fact that he is already in service of the Corporation since 1984. If there are statutory rules/administrative instructions/guidelines which require minimum educational qualification and/or experience, it is open to the Corporation to insist compliance with such rules/instructions/guidelines. But if there is power of relaxation with the Corporation or any of its Officers, the appellant-Corporation will consider that aspect as well keeping in view the fact that the writ petitioner was appointed in 1984, has completed service of more than twenty years and is having rich experience.