Supreme Court of India
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.versusDAYA LAL & ORS.
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 43
- Decided
- 13 January 2011
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- R V RAVEENDRAN
Holding
High Courts cannot direct regularisation, absorption or salary parity for employees who were not appointed through a regular competitive recruitment to a sanctioned post; temporary/part‑time employees and employees of aided private hostels are not entitled to such relief.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging High Court orders that had granted regularisation and salary parity to employees of aided hostels and part‑time cooks/chowkidars in government hostels. It held that employees of privately‑run aided hostels are not state employees and the government is only liable to provide grants for student welfare, not to bear their salaries. The Court further ruled that temporary or part‑time workers who were not appointed through a regular, competitive recruitment to a sanctioned post cannot be regularised or granted salary parity with regular government staff. It emphasized that Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution require strict adherence to the constitutional scheme, and that courts cannot issue directions for regularisation in violation of this scheme. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgments, dismissed the writ petitions, and allowed the appeals.
Issues considered
- Whether persons appointed as Superintendents in aided non‑governmental hostels are entitled to absorption by regularisation in government service or salary parity with Superintendents in government hostels.
- Whether part‑time cooks and chowkidars appointed temporarily in government hostels, with two or three years of service, are entitled to regularisation by framing a special scheme.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 226
Subjects
regularisationparity in paygovernment serviceaided hostelspart‑time employeesArticle 14Article 16Article 226service lawconstitutional law
Judgment
• [2011] 1 S.C.R. 707
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. A
v.
DAYA LAL & ORS.
(Cjvil Appeal No. 486 of 2011)
JANUARY 13, 2011
B
[R. V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]
Service law:
. Regularization - Legal principles relating to c
regularization and parity in pay - Discussed.
Regularization - Persons appointed as Superintendents
in aided non-governmental Hostels - Claim for absorption by
·way of regularization in government service or salary on par
with Superintendents in Government Hostels - Held: Not D
maintainable - Government is liable only to extend'aid to the
aided non-governmental hostels by way of a grant to students
staying in such hostels, to meet the expenditure of food, water,
electricity, clothes, hair-cutting, soap, oil and shoes and
another grant for books and stationery of such students - E
Government is not liable to bear the expenses of salary and
allowances of the employees of the aided hostels and it.is for
the private organizations which run the aided hostels to meet
the salaries of employees from their own resources - The
persons employed in the aided hostels are the employees of F
the respective organizations running those hostels and are not
the. employees of the Government - Government merely
prescribed the eligibility conditions to be fulfilled by the private
organizations to get grants to meet the food and education
expenses of students staying iri such hostels - Therefore, G
persons employed by the aided hostels could not be termed
as persons employed by the State· Government - Nor could
the Government be held liable for their service conditions,
absorption, regularisation or salary of employees of private
707 Ji
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R.
•
A hostels - Government and Aided Hostels Management
Rules, 1982 - rr. 5, 9 and 11.
Temporary employee - Part-time cooks and chowkidars
employed on temporary basis in the Government hostels, wH/J
8 few years of service - Claim for regularization by framing a ·
special scheme - Held: Not entitled - Service for a period of
one or two years or continuation for some more years by virtue
of final orders under challenge, or interim orders, would not
entitle them· to any kind of relief either with reference to
C regularization nor for payment of salary on par with regular
employees of the Department - If there was a one time
scheme for regularisation of those who were in service prior
to a cut off date, there cannot obviously be successive
directions for scheme after scheme for regularization of
i"egular or part-time appointments - Interim order.
D
Regularisation - Jurisdiction of High Courts to direct
regularization, absorption or permanent continuance - Held:
High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the
Constitution will not direct regularization, absorption or
E permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming
regularization had been appointed in pursuance of a regular
recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an opf!n
competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts -,
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16 and 226.
F The questions which arose for consideration in the
instant appeals were whether persons .appoint~d· a~
Superintendents in aided non-governmental Hostels at~
entitled to -claim absorption by way of regularization. in
governm~nt service or salary on · par ·with
G Superintendents in GoYernment Hostels and whether
part-time cooks and chowkidars appointed temporarily
by Mess Committees of Government Hostel$, with two or
three years service, are entitled to regutarization by
framing a special scheme.
H
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. DAYA LAL & 709
ORS.
Allowing the appeals, the Court A
HELD: 1.1 High Courts, in exercising power under
Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for
regularization, absorption or permanent contl'rlUance,
unless the employees claiming regularization had been
B
appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in
accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive
process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality
clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be
scrupulously followed and courts should not issue a
direction for regularization of services of an employee C
which would be violative of constitutional scheme. While
something that is irregular for want of compliance with
one of the elements in the process of selection which
does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized,
the back door entries and appointments contrary to the D
constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible
candidates cannot be regularized. [Para 8] [717-F-H] [718-
A-B]
1.2 Mere continuation of service by a temporary or
E
ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some
interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him
·-- any right to be absorbed into service, as such service
would be 'litigious employment'. Even temporary, ad hoc
or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let
alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such F
employee to claim regularization, if he is not working
against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment
cannot be grounds for passing any. order of
regularization in the absence of a legal right. [Para 8]
[718-E-F] G
1.3 Even where a scheme is formulated for
regularization with a cut off date (that is a scheme
providing that persons who had put in a specified
number of years of service and continuing in employment H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.
A as on the cut off date), it is not possible to others who
were appointed subsequent to the cut off date, to claim
or contend that the scheme should be applied to them
by extending the cut off date or seek a direction for
framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut
B off dates. [Para 8] [718-E-F]
1.4 Part-time employees are not entitled to seek
regularization as t_hey are not working against any
sanctioned posts. There cannot be a dirnction for
absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of
C part time temporary employees. Part time temporary
employees in government run institutions cannot claim
parity in salary with regular employees of the government
on the principle of equal pay for equal. work. Nor can
employees in private employment, even if serving full
o time, seek parity in salary with government employees.
The right to claim a particular salary against the State
must arise under a contract or under a statute. [Para 8]
[718-G-H; 719-A-B]
Secretary, Staste of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi 2006 (4)
E SCC 1; M. Raja vs. GEER/ Educational Society, Pilani 2006
(12) SCC 636; S.C. Chandra vs. State of Jharkhand 2007 (8)
SCC 279; Kurukshetra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd vs.
Mehar Chand 2007 (15) SCC 680; Official Liquidator vs. ~·
Dayanand 2008 (1 O) sec 1 - relied on.
F 2.1 The respondents in the instant appeals were
appointed in pursuance of the Government and Aided
Hostels Management Rules, 1982 which were issued by
the State Government on 18.1.1982. Though they were
referred to as Rules, they were not statutory rules framed
G by the State Government in pursuance of any power
vested in the State by the legislature under any
enactment. They were more in the nature of executive
instructions and guidelines framed for administrative
convenience. The said rules were intended to apply to
H Government hostels run by the Social Welfare
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. DAYA LAL & 711
ORS.
Department as also aided hostels which received any aid A
in the form of grant from the Social Welfare Department.
lnsofa.r as aided hostels are concerned, the Government
is liable only to extend aid by way of a grant to students
of 6 ·to 8 standards and students of 8 to 11 standards,
staying in such hostels, to meet the expenditure of food, B
water, electricity, clothes, hair-cutting, soap, oil and shoes
and another grant for books and stationery of such
students. The Government is not liable to bear the
expenses of salary and allowances of the employees of
the aided hostels and it is for the private organizations c
which run the aided hostels to meet the salaries of
employees from their own resources. The persons
employed in the aided haste.ls are the employees of the
respective organizations running those hostels and not
the employees of the Government. The Government has 0
merely prescribed the eligibility conditions to be fulfilled
by the private organizations to get grants to meet the
food and education expenses of students staying in such
hostels. Therefore under no stretch of imagination,
persons employed by the aided hostels could be termed E
as persons employed by the State Government. Nor
could the Government be held liable for their service
conditions, absorption, regularisation or salary of
employees of private hostels. If the employees (either
permanent or temporary) of the aided hostels are not the
employees of the Government, but of the aided private F
charitable organizations which run such aided hostels,
they could not obviously maintain any writ petition
claiming the status or salary on par with the
. corresponding post-holders in State Government service,
nor claim regularization of service under the state G
government. The writ petitions by persons employed in
aided hostels for relief of regularization or parity in pay,
were not maintainable and the decision of the High Court
granting any relief to them cannot be sustained. [Paras
9, 10) [719-D-F; 722-A-D; 721-E-H] H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.
•
A 2.2 The part-time cooks and chowkidars were
employed on temporary basis in the Government hostels
in the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998. They approached
the High court in the year 1999 (except one who
approached in the year 1997). The services of some of
B them had been terminated within one or two years from
the date of temporary appointment. Though the State had
taken a decision to terminate all those who were
appointed on consolidated wage basis, the other
respondents continued because of the interim orders by
c courts. Service for a period of one or two years or
continuation for some more years by virtue of final
orders under challenge, or interim orders, would not
entitle them to any kind of relief either with reference to
regularization nor for payment of salary on par with
regular employees of the Department. If there was a one
0
time scheme for regularisation of those who were in
service prior to 1.5.1995, there cannot obviously be
successive directions for scheme after scheme for
regularization of irregular or part-time appointments.
E [Paras 11, 12] [722-E-G; 723-A-D]
Daily Rated Casual Labour vs. Union of India 1988 (1)
SCC 122; Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi State Mineral '
Development Corporation 1990 (1) SCC 361; Dharwad
District PWD Literate Dalit Wage Employees Association vs.
F State of Kamataka 1990 (2) SCC 396 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
2006 (4) sec 1 relied on Para 8
2006 (12) sec 636 relied on Para 8
G
2001 (8) sec 219 relied on Para 8
2001 (15) sec 680 relied on Para 8
2oos (10 sec 1) relied on Para 8
H
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. [JAVA LAL & 713 .
ORS.
1988 (1) sec 122 relied on Para 12 A
199·0 (1) sec 361 relied on Para 12
.,
1.990
•,,,,,
(2) sec 396 relied on Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 486 B
,of 201f ·
From the Judgment & Order dated 16.08.2004 of the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil
Special Appeal {Writ)No. 454 of 2004.
c
WITH
C.A. Nos. 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495
L of 2011.
Madhurima Tatia, Milind Kumar, Aruneshwar Gupta for the D
''r' ~ppellants.
Vineet Dhanda, J.P. Dhanda, Raj Rani Dhanda, Amrendra
Kr. Singh, Manu Mridul, Anant Vats, Pranav Vyas, Surya Kant,
Rakhi Banerjee, Shannila Upadhay, M.P. Jha, Ram Ekbal Roy, E .
Harshvarhdan Jha for the Respondents.
The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered b
R.V.RAVEENDRAN~ J. 1. Leave granted.
F
2. The first matter relates to persons temporarily appointed
as Assistant Superintendents in 1985 and 1986 in aided
hostels. The prefix 'Assistant' was omitted in 1996 and
thereafter the respondents were known as Superintendents.
- The second matter relates to a person temporarily appointed G
-'..: as a Superintendent on 30.6.1998 in an aided hostel. They filed
writ petitions contending that they were employed on full-time
basis and were discharging functions similar to those of
Superintendents in Government hostels, but were being paid
only a meagre salary while their counterparts in Government H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R.
•
A hostels are paid much higher pay in the scale of Rs.4000-6100
in the category (A) and (B) Hostels and Rs.3200-4900 in :.._
category 'C' hostels. They sought regularization in the posts of
Hostel SuP.erintendent from the date of initial appointment and
payment of salary on par with hostel Superintendent of class
B 'C' hostels of the Social Welfare Department.
3. The respective respondents in the remaining eight
appeals, claim that they were appointed in the years· 1995,
1996, 1997 and 1998, as part-time cooks/chowkidars in
government hostels run by Social Welfare Department. They
C claim that their appointment orders were issued by the
respective Mess CommiUee of the hostel where they were
employed; that the State Government was paying a fixed
amount of Rs.600/- per month in the form of aid to the
concerned Hostel Mess Committee which, in turn, was being
D paid to them as remuneration. The State Government issued
an order dated 28.12.1998, stopping the practice of appointing
Class IV employees on consolidated wages and to remove any
person appointed on that basis. By subsequent circular dated
21.1.1999, the District Social Welfare Officers were directed
E to remove part time chowkidars/cooks employed by the
Department with effect from 1.2.1999 and replace them by ex-
servicemen or widows of ex-servicemen. In view of the
Government directives, the respondents apprehended their
services may be dispensed with. [The services of two of the
-- .
F respondents - Madan Lal Yogi and Kurda Ram who were
appointed on 15.7.1995 and 1.7.1995 respectively were
however terminated even earlier, on 17 .3.1997 and
28.12.1998]. The respondents submitted that this Court had
earlier approved a scheme under which part time cooks and .
G chowkidars who were working as on 1.5.1995 were
regularized; and that as they (respondents) were all appointed
subsequent to 1.5.1995 and were not therefore covered under
the said scheme, a fresh scheme should be framed to benefit
them. They therefore sought a declaration that the circulars
H
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. DAYA LAL & 715
ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
dated 28.12.1998 and 1.2.1999, were invalid and a direction A
for regularization by framing an appropriate scheme similar to
the scheme framed by the State Government in pursuance of
the order dated 26.5.1995 of the Rajasthan High Court in WP
No.3453/1994 - Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Banswara
vs. The State of Rajasthan. B
4. In the first seven appeals, a learned Single Judge by a
common order dated 7.5.2003 allowed the writ petitions.: He
held that the writ petitioners working on the posts of
Superintendent, Cooks and Chowkidars are entitled to salary
on par with the salary which was paid to their counterparts C ·
holding similar posts in the hostels run by the Social Welfare
Department of the State Government with effect from the dates
of their respective writ petitions. He also held that any attempt
to terminate the services of employees working in the hostels
on consolidated salary was unjust and illegal and therefore the D
writ petitioners should be permitted to continue to work on the
posts which they were holding as on the date of filing their
- respective writ petiti6ns. He directed the State Government to
frame a scheme on the same lines in which the State
Government had earlier framed a scheme relating to part-time E
cooks and chowkidars (who were serving as on 1.5.1995). He
also quashed the orders dated 28.12.1998 and 21.1.1999
(which directed chowkidars and cooks employed on
consolidated wages should be removed with immediate effect
from 1.2.1999 and should be replaced by ex-servicemen or F
·widows of ex-servicemen). The scheme referred to by the·
learned Single Judge was the scheme which was framed by
the State Government in pursuance of the directions of the
. Rajasthan High Court in Anshkalin Samaj Ka/yan Sangh
· (supra) which was approved by this court in 1996 (in CA G
No.365/1994 - State of Rajasthan vs. Mod Singh}. Feeling
aggrieved, the State filed appeals which were dismissed by a ·
common judgment dated 16.8.2004. The said judgments are
challenged in the first seven appeals by the State and its
functionaries. H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.
•
A 5. In the next two appeals, a learned Single Judg~ by
common order dated 5.2.2001 allowed the writ petitions of the
respondent in terms of the following directions issued in
Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Sangh (supra) :
"In the circumstances of the case, it would be ju$t and
B
proper to direct that the Chowkidars and Cooks employed
in the hostels run by the Government or Government aided
institutions, shall be paid at the rate of the minimum of the
pay scale applicable to Class IV employees and Cooks
in the Government employment respectively from the date
c of their filing of the petition. In cases of those who have
filed the petition, in cases of those who have not filed the
petition, it shall be paid from the date of this order. So far
as the regularization is concerned, the cases of all such
employees who have put in service of five years or more
D shall be immediately taken up for consideration for
regularization and scheme for regularization of their
services shall be framed and put into effect within a period
of six months from today. A scheme for regularization of
employment of such employees who have not completed
E five years service shall also be framed within a reasonable
time by the Government. These directions shall be
applicable in the cases of all the employees similarly
situated working in the hostels under the Social Welfare
Department of the.State irrespective of the fact whether
F such employees have filed petitions in this Court or not.
The benefit of this Order shall be available to only those
employees who were in service on the day of filing of
petition or the date of this order as the case may be."
G The writ appeals filed by the State against the said order were
dismissed by a division bench by common order dated >--
16.11.2005.
6. In the last appeal (relating to Kurda Ram), the writ
petition for regularization was dismissed by a learned Single
H Judge by order dated 3.5.1999. However, the special appeal
.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. DAYA LAL & 717
ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
filed by the respondent was allowed by order dated 2.12.2005 . A
and the order of termination was set aside following the
~ decision dated 16.8.2004 (which is the subject matter of the
first seve!l appeals). The division bench observed that the.
respondents' case may be considered in the light of the
decision of this court in the pending .challenge to the order B
dated 16.8.2004.
7. Two questions therefore arise for consideration in these .
• ._.4.. appeals :
(i) Whether persons appointed,-.._as Superintendents in C
aided non-governmental Hostels are entitled to claim
absorption by way of regularization in government service
or salary on par with Superintendents in Government
Hostels?
D
(ii) Whet~er part-time coo~s and chowkidars appointed
temporarily byI
Mess Committees of Government . Hostels,
with two or three years service, are entitled to regularization
by framing a special scheme?
8. We may at the outset refer to the following well settled E
principles .relating to regularization and parity in.l>ay, relevant
in the context of these appeals:
(i) High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226
of the Constitution will not issue directions for F
regularization, absorption or permanent
continuance, unless the employees claiming
regularization had been appointed in pursuance of
a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant
. rules in an open competitive process, against G
sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause
contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be
scrupulously followed and courts should not issue
, a direction for regularization of _services of an
employee which would be violative of constitutional H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. •
A scheme. While something that is irregular for want
of compliance with one of the elements in the
process of selection which does not go to the root
of the process, can be regularized, back door
entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional
B scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates
cannot be regularized.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by an temporary or ad
hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some
interim orders of the court, would not confer upon
c him any right to be qbsorbed into service, as such
service would be 'litigious employment'. Even
temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long
number of years, let alone service for one or two
years, ·will not entitle such employee to claim
D regularization, if he is not working against a
sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot
be grounds for passing any order of regularization
in the absence of a legal right.
E (iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for
regularization with a cut off date (that is a scheme
providing that persons who had put in a specified
number of years of service and continuing in
employment as on the cut off date), it is not possible
F to others who were appointe..d subsequent to the cut
off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should
be applied to them by extending the cut off date or
seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes
providing for successive cut off dates.
G (iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek
regularization as they are not working against any
sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for
'absorption, r~ularization or permanent continuance
of part time temporary employees.
H
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. DAYA LAL & 719
ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
(v) Part time temporary employees in government run A
__;.: institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular
employees of the government on the principle of
equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in
private employment, even if serving full time, seek
-f parity in salary with government employees. The 8
right to claim a particular salary against the State
must arise under a contract or under a statute.
·------'- (See: Secretary.. State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi - 2006 (4)
SCC 1, M. Raja vs. GEER/ Educational Society, Pilani -
2006 (12) SCC 636, S.C. Chandra vs. State of Jharkhand -
c
2007 (8) SCC 279, Kurukshetra Central Co-operative Bank
Ltd vs. Mehar Chand - 2007 (15) SCC 680, and Official
Liquidator vs. Dayanand - 2008 (10 SCC 1)
9. As noticed above, the respondents in these appeals D
"'f' were appointed in pursuance of the Government & Aided -
Hostels Management Rules, 1982 which were issued by the
·State Government on 18.1.1982. Though they were referred to
as Rules, they were not statutory rules framed by the State
Government in pursuance of any power vested in the State by E
the legislature under any enactment. They were more in the
nature of executive instructions and guidelines framed for
administrative convenience. The said rules were intended to
'~
apply to Government hostels run by the Social Welfare
Department as also aided hostels which received any aid in F
the form of grant from the Social Welfare Department. We may
refer to the relevant provisions of these Rules.
9.1) Rule 5 indicated the staff pattern in _Government
Hostels. Clause (2) of Rule 5 provided that every government
hostel should have an Assistant Superintendent and the salary G
-----(
of the Assistant Superintendent in 'A' and 'B' category hostels
will_ be in the pay scale of Rs.385-650 and in 'C' category
hostels, the salary will be in the pay-scale of Rs.350-570.
Clauses (4), (5) and (6) of Rule 5 provided that every hostel
will have one temporary Doctor (who will be paid a monthly H
720 SUPREME COUflT REPORTS (2011] 1 S.C.R.
A conveyance allowance of Rs.75/- in 'A' & 'B' category Hostels
and Rs.50/- in 'C' category Hostels), a Class IV employee who
was to stay in the hostel by being provided accommodation and
a Safai Karamchari who was to be appointed on temporary
basis.
B
9.2) Clause 9 provided that every Government hostel will
have a Mess Committee consisting of Superintendent[Warden
as the President, one elected Secretary from among the
students, five other students as members and an Assistant
C Superintendent as accountant-cum-cashier. Clause (3) of Rule
· 9 provided that the Mess Committee will arrange for the food,
breakfast, water, electricify, clothes, hair-cutting, soap, oil and
shoes etc. for the students for which the Government would pay
to the Mess Committee a sum of Rs.80/- per student (relating
to students of Classes 6 to 8) and Rs;85/- per month (relating
D to students of Classes 9 to 11). For every academic session,
the Government would also pay in a lumpsum to the District
Officer, a sum calculated at the rate of Rs.60/-per student (for
classes 9 to 11) and Rs.40/- per student (for classes 6 to 8)
for providi!lg books, stationery and fees for the students in the
E Hostels. Clause (7) of Rule 9 provided· that Mess Committee
of Government Hostels will not be provided departmental cooks
y.
but each Mess Committee will be given a grant of Rs.250/- per
cnonth per cook and the number of cooks will be decided with
reference to the number.of students (one cook for 25 students)
F and the appointment of cooks will be on part-time basis for ten
months in a year.
\
9.3) Rule 11 related to recognition of aided hostels and
their management. Clause (1) thereof provided that registeretl
G voluntary service organizations are required to· submit
applications to the Director' for management of hostels,
recognition and permission of grant. Clause (2) provided that
the Director, Social Welfare Department, will dispose of the
applications taking note of the availability of sufficient building
and other sources, whether sufficient means for meeting the
H - ,
- STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. DAYA LAL &
ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
721
necessary expenses are available with the organization in the A
proposed hostel, whether the organization is capable of
providing the prescribed facilities in the hostel. Clause (3)
provided that on~ of the conditions for sanction of the hostel is
the admission of students belonging to scheduled castes,
scheduled tribes and backward classes as declared by the 8
Government from.time to time. Clause (5) of Rule 11 provided
that 90% of the amount pa'yable by the Social Welfare
Department to the Aided Hostels-(for providing food, clothes
·- _...._ etc. to the students} will be paid to the account of the Mess
Committee (calculated with reference to the number of students} c
and grant for fees and books of the students will be distributed
by the District Offices. It further provided that the expenses on ·
. the salary and allowances of Assistant Superintendent, class
· IV ernployees appointed by the Aided organization, cost of
fixed assets and rent of building will be borne by the aided D
organization which runs the hostel.
·Re : Question (i) - First two appeals relating to aided
hostels
10. it is thus evident that insofar as aided hostels were E
concerned, the Government was liable only to extend aid by way
of a grant to students of 6 to 8 standards and students of 8 to
11 standards, staying in such hostels, to meet the expenditure
of food, water, electricity, clothes, hair-cutting, soap, oil and
:: shoes and another grant for books and stationery of such F
students. The Government was not liable tc bear the expenses
of salary and allowances of the employees of the aided hostels
and it was for the private organizations which. ran the aided
hostels to ineet the salaries of employees from' their own
resources, The persons employed in the aided hostels were
the employees of the respective organizations running those G
hostels and not the employees -of the Government. Thee
. . '
Government has merely prescribed the eligibility conditions to
be fulfilled by the private organizations to get grants to meet
the food and education expenses of students staying in such
H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. ...
A hostels. Therefore under no stretch of imagination persons
employed by the aided hostels could be termed as persons
employed by the State Government. Nor could the Government
be held liable for their service conditions, absorption,
regularisation or salary of employees of private hostels. If the
B employees (either permanent or temporary) of the aided
hostels are not the employees of the Government, but of the
aided private charitable organizations which run such aided
hostels, they could not obviously maintain any writ petition
claiming the status or salary on par with the corresponding
c post-holders in State Government service, nor claim
regularization of service under the state government. Hence, the
writ petitions by persons employed in aided hostels for relief
of regularization or parity in pay, were not maintainable and the
decision of the High Court granting any relief to them cannot
be sustained.
0
Re : Question (ii) - The other appeals relating to part-time
cooks/chowkidars •in· government hostels.
11. The part-time· cooks and chowkidars were employed
E on temporary basis in the Government hostels in the years
1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998. They approached the High court
in the year 1999 (except Madan Lal Yogi who approached in
the year 1997). The services of some of them had been
terminated within one or two years from the date of temporary
F appointment. Though the State had taken a decision to
terminate all those who were appointed on consolidated wage
basis, the -Other respondents continued because of the interim
orders by courts. Service for a period of one or two years or
continuation for some more years by virtue of fina~ orders under
G challenge, or interim orders, will not entitle them to any kind of
relief either with reference to regularization nor for payment of
salary on par with regular employees of the Department.
12. The decision relied upon by the High Court namely the
decision in Anshkalin Samaj Ka/yan Sangh of the High Court
H no doubt directed the state government to frame a scheme for
,.
- STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. DAYA LAL & .
ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
723
regularization of part-time cooks and chowkidars. It is clear A
from the said decision, that such scheme was intended to be
_J...
an one-time measure. Further said decision was rendered by
the High Court prior to Uma Devi, relying upon the decision of
this Court in Daily Rated Casual Labour vs. Union of India
(1988 (1) SCC 122], Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi State Mineral B
Development Corporation (1990 (1) SCC 361] and Dharwad
District PWD Literate Dalit Wage Employees Association vs. ·
State of Kamataka (1990 (2) SCC 396]. These directions were
.~ considered, explained and in fact, overruled by the Constitution
Bench in Uma Devi. The decision in Anshkalin Samay Kalyan c
Singh is no longer good law. At all events, even if there was
an one time scheme for regularisation of those who were in
service prior to 1.5.1995, there cannot obviously be successive .
directions for scheme after scheme for regularization of irregular
or part-time appointments. Therefore the said decision is of no
D
assistance.
~
Conclusion
13. In view of the above, both the questions are answered
in the negative and in favour of the appellants. Therefore, none E
of the respondents is entitled to any relief. All the appeals are
allowed and the orders of the High Court challenged in these
appeals are set aside. Consequently, the writ petitions filed by
'__.._ the respondents before the High Court stand dismissed.
D.G. Appeals allowed. F
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "regularisation"Sign in to search