STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THROUGH THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURE TO THE GOVT. OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA versus NODHA RAM AND ORS.
Temporary employment does not create vested right to regularisation; courts cannot direct creation of posts in absence of vacancies; High Court's direction to regularise or re-engage employees was illegal and warrants interference.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Appellant: State of Himachal Pradesh, through the Secretary Agriculture to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Respondents: Nodha Ram and Ors.
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interim Direction of High Court
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; order of High Court set aside.
- Legal Topics
- Regularisation of Temporary Employment, Creation of Posts, Pragmatic Approach in Service Matters
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
State of Himachal Pradesh, through the Secretary Agriculture to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla
Appellant
Nodha Ram and Ors.
Respondents
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interim Direction of High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether daily wage employees have a vested right to be regularised or continued after closure of the project
- 2 Whether courts can direct creation of posts or regularisation in absence of vacancies
Ratio Decidendi
Temporary employment does not create vested right to regularisation; courts cannot direct creation of posts in absence of vacancies; High Court's direction to regularise or re-engage employees was illegal and warrants interference.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; order of High Court set aside.
Orders
- Order of High Court dated 18.11.92 set aside
- No costs awarded
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
A ·
B
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THROUGH THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURE TO THE GOVT. OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA · v. NODHA RAM AND ORS.
JANUARY 3, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950:
C
Articles 226, I 36--Daily wagers on muster roll--Paid from funds pro- vided by Central Government--Project completed and closed due to non-avail ability offunds-&rvices dispensed with-Writ Petition-High Court order ing re-engagement of the employees-On appeal held: no vested right is cre ated on temporary employment-Non-availability of vacancies--Courts to D adopt pragmatic approach-Regularisation/Creation of posts cannot be
directed--Service Law-Regularisation.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1539of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.92 of the Himachal Pradesh
E High Court in C.W.P. No. 860 of 1992.
Naresh K. Sharma for the Appellant.
Uma Datta for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Leave granted.
Heard Counsel on both sides.
The facts are that the respondents were engaged on daily wages on mus ter roll basis in Central Scheme and were paid out of the funds provided by the Central Government. It is stated that after the Scheme was closed their serv ices were dispensed with. When the respondents filed the writ petition in the High Court, the High Court gave interim directi.on on November 18, 1992 and directed their re-engagement elsewhere. Against the aforesaid interim direc tion, this appeal by special leave has heen filed.
54
F
G
H
\.
STATE OF H.P. v. NODHA RAM
SS It is seen that when the project is completed and closed due to non availability of funds, the employees have to go along with its closure. The High Court was not right in giving the direction to regularise them or to con tinue them in other places. No vested right is created in temporary employ ment. Directions cann_ot be given to regularise their services in the absence of any existing vacancies nor can directions be given to the State to create posts in a non-exist~nt establislunent. The Court would adopt pragn1atic approach in giving directions. !he directions would amount to creating of posts and continuing them despite non-availability of the work. We are of the consid ered view that the directions issued by the High Court are absolutely illegal warranting our interference. The order of the High Court is, therefore, set side.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.
A
B
c