Holding

Regularisation of casual workers must be prospective and cannot be backdated so as to affect the seniority of regular appointees.

Summary

Sheela Rani was engaged as a casual worker on 17 November 1982 to note complaints in an enquiry office. She sought regularisation of her post with retrospective effect from that date, invoking directions of the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal ordered her regularisation retrospectively, but the Delhi High Court dismissed her writ petitions. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that regularisation of casual workers must be prospective, cannot be backdated, and must not disturb the seniority of regular appointees. The Court set aside the High Court judgment and the Tribunal's retrospective order, allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

Can the services of a casual worker be regularised with retrospective effect from the date of initial appointment?

Legislation cited

Subjects

casual workerregularisationretrospective effectseniorityadministrative tribunallabour lawemployment law

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. A
v.
SHEELA RANI

DECEMBER 8, 2006

[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] B

Labour Laws-Regularisation-Claim of-Regularisation of casual
worker with retrospective effect, from the date of iniiial appointment-Held:
Casual worker cannot be regularised from the date of initial appointment- C
Regularisation should be prospective and not retrospective-It should be as
per the relevant Rules-Seniority of regular appointees cannot be ignored.

The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was whether
the services of a casual worker can be regularised with retrospective effect
i.e. from the date of initial appointment D
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The regularization of casual worker should be prospective
and not retrospective. Care must be taken to see that regularization of casual
worker does not upset the seniorities of regular appointees. (504-DI E
1.2. It is not in dispute that the respondent was engaged as a casual
worker and the nature of the job assigned to her was to note down .the
complaints in the enquiry office. She was performing the duties at the enquiry
office on muster roll as a casual worker to note down day to day complaints.
Respondent has also not placed any documentary evidence in respect of her F
claim nor any such evidence is available on record. The date of registration
of the respondent with the employment exchange is 25.3.1983 whereas the
respondent is daiming that her name was referred to the appellant-department
by the employment exchange. The respondent was engaged as casual worker
on 17.11. 1982, therefore, employment exchange could not have referred as G
she was registered in employment exchange only on 25.8.1983. The
respondent's claim, to regularize her services from 17.11.1982 is not correct
as she was engaged only as casual worker. She was regularized w.e.f.
26.9.2001 as the regularization of casual worker is covered under the
relevant Rules. (502-F-H; 503-A-B)
499 H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 10 S.C.R. ....
A State of Haryana. v. Jasmer Singh., (1996] 11 SCC 83 and Registrar
General of India and Anr. v. V. Thippa Setty and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 690,
relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5666 of2006.

B From the final Judgment and Order dated 28-1-2004 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 14 79-82/2005.

R. Mohan, A.S.G., K. Radha Krishan Sunita Sharma, Shilpa Singh and
V.K. Verma for the Appellants.

C S.M. Ratanpaul, Arun K. Sinha, Rakesh Singh and Mukesh Kr. Sinha for
the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. AR. LAKSHJ\o'IANAN. Leave granted.
D
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.

E 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
F 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
G 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
H regularization of the respondent within four months of the receipt of the
U.0.1. v. SHEELA RANI [LAKSHMANAN, .T.] 501

judgment. The respondent herein filed Contempt Petition No. 194 of 200 I in A
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 B
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 of2001 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 C
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 D
said order, the appellants preferred C. W.P. Nos. 14 79-1482 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.
E
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 p
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 v. Jasmer Singh [1996) 11 G
SCC 83, and Registrar General ofIndia & Anr. v. Thippa Setty & Ors., [ 1998]
s sec 690.
Per contra, J\.Ir. S.M. Ratanpaul, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, submitted that the appellants have regularized the services of the H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R.

A respondent as Mate w.e.f. 26.9.2001 depriving her of 19 years of continuous
service since 17 .11.1982. It was further submitted that the contempt petition
was finally heard and the appellants herein were directed to regularize the
respondent herein from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 17 .11.1982. In
view of a similar case of P.M Augustian v. Union of India & Ors., decided
by Emakulam Bench of the Tribunal and since the request for regularization
B was not complied with within the time stipulated in the contempt petition, the
respondent herein filed revival of the petition which was allowed and the
appellants herein issued revised orders again rejecting the prayer of the
respondent herein for regularization from the date of her initial appointment.
The Tribunal heard the revived contempt petition and decided that as the
C respondents/appellants herein have issued revised order dated 14.1.2003,
there has not been any willful or contumacious disobedience of the Tribunal's
order warranting any further action to be taken against the alleged contemnors
under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Section
17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The contempt petition was
dismissed and the notice to contemnors was discharged. However, the
D Tribunal granted liberty to the respondent herein as advised in accordance
with law. Therefore, the respondent .filed O.A. challenging Office Memorandum
dated 14.1.2003 issued by the appellants herein rejecting the respondent's
prayer for regularization from the initial date of her appointment i.e. 17.11.l 982.
Learned counsel further submitted that any casual employee who has been
E appointed after satisfying the requirements through proper channel, is eligible
for consideration of regularization of the service if he is able to establish that
he was continuously working and there was existing vacancy at the relevant
time. The Tribunal; therefore, considered the case of the respondent and the
long continuous service rendered by her and held that the respondent is
entitled to regularization from the date of her initial appointment.
F
Counter affidavit was filed in the above appeal reiterating the contentions
raised before the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the respondent was
engaged as a casual worker and that is admitted by the respondent and the
nature of the job assigned to her )Vas to note down the complaints in the
G enquiry office. She was performing the duties at the enquiry office on muster
roll as a casual worker to note down day to day complaints. The respondent
has also not placed any documentary evidence in respect of her claim nor any
such evidence is available on record. The date of registration of the respondent
with the employment exchange is 25.3.1983 whereas the respondent is claiming
that her name was referred to the appellants-department by the employment
H exchange. Therefore, the contention raised by the respondent is not correct
U.0.1. v. SHEELA RANI [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 503
and misleading. The respondent was engaged as casual worker on 17.11.1982, A
therefore, employment exchange could not have referred as she was registered
in employment exchange only on 25.8.1983. The respondent's claim, in our
opinion, to regularize her services from 17 .11.1982 is not correct. She was
r~gularized w.e.f. 26.9.2001 as the regularization of casual worker is covered
under the relevant Rules. In the rejoinder affidavit, the appellants have stated B
the following latest position of the workers, some of them have not been
regularized so far and those regularized have not been regularized from the
date of engagement:
Name Designation Date of Date of
Engagement regulation
Kashi Nath Sr. Mech. 07.02.82 Not regularized
c
so far but
temporary status
given
Kirti Ram Sr.Mech 01.12.81 Not regularized so
far but temporary D
status given
Bahunt Lal Mech. 02.08.83 Not regularized so
far but temporary
status given
Joginder Singh Lab. Asst. 14.11.82 Not regularized so E
far
Baleshwar Pandit Pump Operator 01.01.82 Regularised w.e.f.
12.12.94
Joginder Thakur Pump Operator 01.01.82 Regularised w.e.f.
12.12.94
F
Mahabir Singh Welder 02.06.82 Regularised w.e.f.
11.12.96
Iqbal Singh Auto Elect. 26.1.83 Regularised w.e.f.
19.4.96
Rakesh Kumar Wireman 28.01.81 Not regularized so
far G
Perusal of the above list shows that these casual workers are technical
people and they have been engaged prior to the respondent. In our opinion,
the respondent's claim to be regularized from l 7. l l.l 982 is not acceptable as
she was engaged only as casual worker.
H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. IO S.C.R.

A The law is well settled on this issue. In State of Haryana v. Jasmer
Singh (supra), a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that the regularization
of daily rated workmen who had completed a certain number of years of
service is a policy matter to be decided by the State. This Court held that
the respondents who are employed on daily wages can not be treated on par
B with persons in regular service of the State holding similar post. Daily rated
workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for the
regular work nor do they have to fulfill the requirement relating to age at the
time of recruitment. They cannot, therefore, be equated with the regular
workmen for the purposes of their wages nor can they claim the minimum
wage regular pay scale of the regularly employed.
c In Registrar General of India & Anr. v. V. Thippa Setty & Ors., (supra),
the Tribunal's direction was to regularize the respondents w.e.f. the date of
promulgation of the recruitment rules or from the date of their appointment
depending on the seniority list. In pursuance of the said direction, on the
new recruitment rules being promulgated on 11.5.1985, the regularization was
D given effect from that date. However, in the subsequent order passed by the
Tribunal on 19.2.1993, the Tribunal has directed that they should be treated
as having been conferred regular status w.e.f. 5.2.1981 i.e. the date of their
entry into service as Investigators. This Court held that the employees had
entered as ad hoc appointees and the question was whether they should be
E regularized in service since they had worked as ad hoc employees for a
sufficient long time. If the ad hoc service is regularized from the back date
in this manner, it will disturb the seniority of regularly appointed employees
in the cadre and, therefore, ordinarily the regularization must take effect
prospectively and not retrospectively. This Court ordered that care must be
taken to· see that regularization do not upset the seniorities of regular
F appointees. Whether they qualify in a given case or not is not relevant but
what is relevant is that regularization should be prospective and not
retrospective as the chances of their upsetting the seniorities cannot be
overlooked.

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

N.J. Appeal allowed.