Case: B.S.N.L., Jammu Vs. Teja Singh

The respondent was employed with the appellant company as aMazdoor. He was recruited in the year 1973. He was appointed on regular basis with effect from 11.8.1986. He attained the age of superannuation on 30th August,again while working onhis services were terminated in 1993. He filed a representation for payment of gratuity as also other retiral benefits. He having been denied the retiral benefits on the premise that he had not completed 10 years qualifying service as required in terms of the Service Rules, he filed an original application before the Central Administrativesaid application was allowed inter alia on the premise that the appellant had formulated a regularisation scheme in the year 1989 in terms whereof the respondent should have been given a permanent status. The High Court has upheld the said view.

Court's reasoning:
A Constitution Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors. [2006 (4) SCC 1 ], has categorically held that keeping in view the constitutional scheme of equality, as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, regularisation or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual,or ad hoc employees in public employment dehors the constitutional scheme is impermissible inview of the said decision of the Constitution Bench, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the 1989 regularisation scheme having not been enforced in the case of the respondent, it did not come within the purview of the exception carved out by the Court in paragraph 53, of Umadevi as quotedthe reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the view of the learned Tribunal as also the High Court cannot be sustained.