Holding

Temporary status under the 1993 Scheme is limited to casual labourers who were in employment on the Scheme’s commencement date and have completed at least one year of continuous service; it is not a general, ongoing entitlement.

Summary

The respondents, who had worked as casual labourers in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts between 1989 and 1995, claimed entitlement to regularisation under the Government of India's 1993 "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme" after being disengaged due to lack of work. The High Court held that they were to be considered for regularisation, but the employer appealed, arguing that the decision conflicted with the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Union of India v. Mohan Pal. The Supreme Court examined clause 4 of the Scheme, which stipulates that temporary status can be conferred only on casual labourers who were in employment on the Scheme’s commencement date and who have completed at least one year of continuous service (240 days, or 206 days where a five‑day work week applies). The Court held that the Scheme is not an ongoing programme and does not automatically grant temporary status to all casual workers upon completing a year of service. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether the casual labourers are entitled to temporary status and regularisation under the 1993 Scheme
Whether clause 4 of the Scheme creates a general, ongoing entitlement for all casual workers who complete one year of continuous service
Whether the High Court's interpretation is inconsistent with the precedent set in Union of India v. Mohan Pal

Subjects

casual labourtemporary statusregularisation schemeservice lawinterpretation of government schemeSupreme Court precedentemployment entitlementappeal

Judgment

CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS, DEHRADUN AND ORS. A
- >-.
v.
DHANI RAM AND ORS.

JULY l 0, 2007

[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] B

Service law:
' _j

Casual labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization)
Scheme of Government of India, 1993: Clause 4: C
Regularization of services of casual labourers-Regularization
Scheme-Applicability of-Held: Jn terms ofClause 4 of the Scheme, temporary
status Could be granted by the Government to the causal labourers who were
in employment as on the date of Commencement of the Scheme and completed D
one year of continuous senice-However, it does not appear to be a genera!
guideline to be applied for the purpose of granting temporary status to all
the casual workers as and when they complete one year of continuous
service-Union Government, as and when it found necessary, could formulate
such Scheme to grant temporary status.
E
Respondents were engaged as casual labourers in the office of the
Controller of the Defence Accounts during the period 1989-95. A Scheme
for regularization of casual labourers called "Casual Labourers (Grant of
Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993
came into force with effect from 1. 9.1993. The respondents were disengaged
as there was no work available for them. They filed the writ petition for F
directions to the employer for regularization of their services. The High Court
disposed of the writ petitions holding that they were to be considered for
regularization. A review petition field by the employer was dismissed by the
High Court. Hence the present appeal.

Appellant-employer contended that the High Court's decision is clearly G
conttary to the decision of this Court in the matter of Union of India & Anr.
v. Mohan Pal & Anr., (20021 4 SCC 573 and, therefore, unsustainable.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

233 H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A HELD: In order to acquire "temporary" status, the casual labourer
should have been in employment as on the date of commencement of th'
Regularisation Scheme and he should have also rendered a continuous serviCe .
of at least one year which means that he should have been engaged for a period
of at least 240 days in a year or 206 days in case of offices observing 5 days
a week. From clause 4 of the Scheme, it does not appear to be a general
B guideline to be applied for the purpose of giving "temporary" status to ali the
casual workers, as and when they complete one year continuous service. Of
course, it is up to the Union Government to formulate any scheme as and when
it is found necessary that the casual labourers are to be given "temporary"
status and later they are to be absorbed in Group "D" posts. Under the
C circumstances, the orders of the High Court are clearly unsustainable.
(Para 12 and 14) (236-C·E, G)

Union of India and Anr. v. Mohan Pal and Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 573;
Union ofIndia v. Gagan Kumar, JT (2005) 6 SC 410 and Director General,
Doordarshan, Mandi House, New Delhi & Ors. v. Manas Dey and Ors., (2005)
p 13 sec 437, relied on. .
)•'
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2940-2941 of
2007.

From the Final Judgment & Order dated 16.4.2003 and 28.8.2004 of the
High Court ofUttaranchal at Nainital in W.P. No. 939 (SB) of2002 and Rev.
E Appln.No. 7323/2003 in CM.W.P. No. 939(SB)/2002.

R. Mohan, ASG., SWft Qadri, R.C. Kathia, and Anil Katiyar for the
Appellants. ·

. Rajesh K. Sharma and Shalu Sharma for the Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by A learned Single
G Judge of the Uttranchal High Court in Writ Petition No.939 (SB) of2002 dated
16.4.2003 and the order on the review petition dated 28.8. 2004 .
. ,.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

4~ Respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming that
H they shoul~ be considered for regularization and should be paid minimum of
CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS, DEHRADUN v. OHAN! RAM [PASAVAT, J.] 235

- ),.--· pay scale. The respondents were engaged as casual labourers in the office A
of the Controller of the Defence Accounts during the period 1989-95. The
nature of the engagement was casual/seasonal depending upon the availability
of the work.

5. A scheme called "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and
Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993 (in short the 'Scheme') B.
was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG and
,...
Pension, Department of Personnel and Training. The Scheme came into force
)-. with effect from l.9.1993.

6. On 6.6.2002, OM No.40011/6/2002/Estt. was issued by the Government
of India reiterating that the scheme relating to temporary status was not on-
c
going scheme and the temporary status can be conferred under the scheme
only subject to fulfillment of the conditions as stipulated in clause 4 of the
scheme. The respondents were disengaged as there was no work available for
" them. They filed the writ petition taking the stand that they were entitled to
be continued in service as they were working up to 3.7.2002. D
>, 7. The writ petition was resisted by the respondents. In the writ petition
taking the stand that the writ petitioners were not covered by the scheme of
regularization as they did not fulfil the prescribed criteria, they were not
entitled to grant of temporary status. The High Court, however, disposed of
the writ petitions holding that they were to be .considered for regularization. E
A review petition was filed taking the stand that in view of this Court's
judgment in Union of India and Anr. v. Mohan Pal and Ors. [2002] 4 SCC
573 the writ-petitioners were not entitled to any relief. The High Court,
however, dismissed the review petition. ·

-,, 8. .In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted F
that the High Court's dec.ision is clearly contrary to the decision of this Court
in Mohan Pal's case (supra) and, therefore, unsustainable.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the
orders of the High Court.
G
. l 0. Paragraph 4(1) of the Scheme reads as follows:

"Temporary Status - Temporary status would be conferred on all
casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this
O.M. and have rendered a continuous service of at least one year,
H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R.

A which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at
least 240 (206 days in the cases of offices observing 5 days a week)."

· 11. The relevant portion of paragraph 3 of the scheme reads as follows:

"This scheme is applicable to casual labourers in employment of the
B Ministries/Department of Government of India and their attac?ed and
·subordinate officer, on the date of issue of these order."

12. Clause 4 of the Scheme is very clear that the conferment of ~..
"temporary" status is to be given to the casual labourers who were in
employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme. High. Court
C seems to have taken the view that this is an -ongoing scheme and as and when
casual labourers complete 240 days of work in a year or 206 days (in case of
offices observing 5 days a week), they are entitled to get "temporary" status·.
Clearly clause 4 of the Scheme does not envisage it as an ongoing sche.me.
In order to acquire "temporary" status, the casual labourer should have been
in employment as on the date of commencement of th.e Scheme and he should
D have also rendered a continuous service of at least one year which means that
he should have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days in a year or -..
206 days in case of offices observing 5 days a week. From clause 4 of the
Scheme, it does not appear to be a general guideline to be applied for the
purpose of giving "temporary" status to all the casual workers, as and when
E they complete one year's continuous service. Ofcourse, it is up to the Union
Government to formulate any scheme as and when it is found necessary that
the casual labourers are to be given "temporary" status and later they are to
be absorbed in Group "D" posts.

13. This position as highlighted in Mohan Pal's case (supra) was
F reiterated in Union ofIndia v. Gagan Kumar, JT (2005) 6 SC 410 and Director x
General, Doordafshan, Mandi House, New Delhi and Ors. v. Manas Dey and
Ors., [2005] 13 SCC 437. ·

14. Above being the pos1t1on, the High Court's orders are clearly ·
unsustainable, and are set aside. The appeals are allowed with no order as
G to costs.

S.K.S. Appeals allowed.