Union Of India And Others v. Bishamber Dutt .

Factual and Procedural Background

The matter concerns appeals by special leave arising from an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The admitted factual position recorded by the Court is that the respondent, along with others, was appointed as a Class IV employee in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts on a part-time basis on various dates (3-9-1990, 14-11-1991, and 14-9-1994). There was a controversy as to whether the appointments were on an hourly basis or regular (monthly) basis, but the Court found it unnecessary to decide that aspect. The employees received consolidated pay of Rs 500 per month, later raised to Rs 600 per month, for working six hours a day.

The Tribunal had directed grant of temporary status or regularisation. The Supreme Court considered whether such directions were permissible given the nature of the appointments and relevant governmental directions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether part-time Class IV employees appointed dehors the rules (i.e., not to a regular post after selection according to rules) are entitled to temporary status or regularisation as directed by the Tribunal.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondents' Arguments

• The respondents contended that because they had been working regularly for a long time, they were entitled to regularisation.

Appellants' Position (as reflected in the Court's assessment)

• The Court recorded the admitted position that the respondents were appointed on a part-time basis and not to regular posts through selection according to rules.
• Reference was made to directions issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension dated 12-7-1994 (Memorandum, clause 3) stating that part-time employees are not entitled to temporary status.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court treated as decisive the admitted nature of the appointments: the respondents were not appointed to regular posts after selection in accordance with rules; rather, they were engaged as part-time employees dehors the rules. On that footing, the Court framed the central question as whether temporary status or regularisation could be granted.

The Court noted that, pursuant to an enquiry on whether temporary status should be granted to part-time employees, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension issued directions dated 12-7-1994 in a Memorandum (clause 3) that such employees are not entitled to temporary status. Given that the respondents were not appointed on a regular basis in accordance with rules, the Court held that the Tribunal's direction to regularise their services was "obviously illegal."

Addressing the respondents' contention that long, regular working entitled them to regularisation, the Court rejected this approach. It held that unless the employees are appointed on a regular basis according to rules after consideration of their claims on merits, there is no question of regularisation.

Holding and Implications

ALLOWED: The appeals were allowed and the Tribunal's orders were set aside. No costs were awarded.

The direct effect is that the respondents do not receive temporary status or regularisation on the basis of their part-time engagements made dehors the rules. The Court indicated that regularisation cannot be claimed merely due to long service; it requires appointment on a regular basis according to the applicable rules after consideration on merits. The opinion does not discuss broader implications or the creation of any new precedent beyond resolving the parties' dispute.