Union Of India & Ors vs Sheela Rani

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. 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 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 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 regularization of the respondent within four months of the receipt of the judgment. The respondent herein filed Contempt Petition No. 194 of 2001 in the aforesaid O.A. and alleged non-compliance of the Tribunal's order and judgment as the services of the respondent were not regularized with retrospective effect i.e. 17.11.1982 being the date of her initial engagement as casual worker. The services of the respondent was regularized as Mate w.e.f. 26.9.2001. The Tribunal vide its order dated 11.1.2002 discharged the notice and dropped the aforesaid Contempt Petition but gave a direction to the appellants herein to consider respondent's case for grant of regularization w.e.f. the date of her initial engagement i.e. 17.11.1982. Liberty was also given to the respondent for revival of the aforesaid C.P. No. 194 of 2001 in case the direction given by the Tribunal is not implemented within a period of eight weeks. In view of the aforesaid direction given to the appellants by the Tribunal, the claim of the respondent was considered and vide Office Memorandum dated 14.1.2003, the said claim for grant of regularization with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of initial appointment being 17.11.1982 was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed O.A.No. 1926 of 2003 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed O.A. vide order dated 25.2.2004. Against the said order, the appellants preferred C.W.P. Nos. 1479-1482 of 2005 before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petitions. Against the said order of the High Court, the appellants filed the above appeal by way of special leave petitions before this Court. We heard Mr. R. Mohan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants and Mr. S.M. Ratanpaul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. We have carefully perused the judgment passed by the High Court. Mr. R. Mohan, learned ASG, submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate that regularization of a casual worker cannot be made with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from the date of initial appointment and that regularization of a casual worker can only be done in accordance with the relevant scheme and rules and from the date when regular vacancy/post is available for such regularization. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments of this Court in State of Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996) 11 SCC 83 and Registrar General of India & Anr. Vs. V. Thippa Setty & Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 690.

We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and restore the order of regularization passed by the Tribunal. However, there shall be no order as to costs.