Part-Time Employees Can’t Seek Regularization As Matter Of Right Contrary To Govt’s Regularization Policy

Case: Union of India and Ors v Ilmo Devi and Anr

Coram: Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna

Case no.: Civil Appeal No 5689 of 2021

Court Observation: “Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any sanctioned post and there cannot be any permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees as held. The regularization can be only as per the regularization policy declared by the State/Government and nobody can claim the regularization as a matter of right dehors the regularization policy.”

“As observed above, there are no sanctioned posts in the Post Office in which the respondents were working, therefore, the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order are not permissible in the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court cannot, in the exercise of the power under Article 226, issue a Mandamus to direct the Department to sanction and create the posts. The High Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, also cannot direct the Government and/or the Department to formulate a particular regularization policy. Framing of any scheme is no function of the Court and is the sole prerogative of the Government. Even the creation and/or sanction of the posts is also the sole prerogative of the Government and the High Court, in the exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot issue Mandamus and/or direct to create and sanction the posts,”

“Even the regularization policy to regularize the services of the employees working on the temporary status and/or casual labourers is a policy decision and in judicial review the Court cannot issue Mandamus and/or issue mandatory directions to do so,”

“In absence of any sanctioned post and considering the fact that the respondents were serving as a contingent paid part-time Safai Karamcharies, even otherwise, they were not entitled for the benefit of regularization under the regularization policy dated June 30, 2014.”

[doc id=11130]

Previous Posts

Electricity Act – Additional Bill Raised By Distributor After Detecting Mistake Not Hit By 2 Years Limitation Under Section 56(2): Supreme Court

‘Fit Case To Be Included In Law School Syllabus’: Supreme Court On 5th Round Of Litigation Stalling Execution In 50 Yr. Old Suit

Dependent Cannot Seek Compassionate Appointment On Higher Post Than Held By Deceased Employee: Supreme Court

First Appellate Court Should Deal With All Issues And Evidence And Follow Procedure Under CPC: Supreme Court

Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Fraud, Misrepresentation Or Undue Influence Can’t Be Proved If Specific Pleadings Are Absent: Supreme Court Download Judgement