Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ravi Verma And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 March, 2018
Bench: Arun Mishra, Uday U. Lalit
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 27952796 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP (C ) NOS. 3325833259 OF 2015)
RAVI VERMA AND ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellants have come up in the appeals aggrieved by the
judgments and orders passed by the High Court and the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT). They have prayed for the
regularization of their services.
4. The appellants were appointed as casual employees in the
Income Tax Department in the year 199394 since then they were
Signature Not Verified
working continuously. On 30th January 2004 with respect to other
Digitally signed by
NEELAM GULATI
Date: 2018.03.21
16:03:05 IST
Reason:
similarly situated employees, temporary status was granted. The
respondent no. 4 on 30th December 2004 recommended the case of
2
the appellants for temporary status/ regularization. Again it was
recommended for regularization on 14.06.2005. In the meantime, the
decision in the State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 was
pronounced by this Court, the same provided that the employees who
had rendered services continuously for ten years without the cover of
the court's order be regularized as the onetime measure.
5. On 11.12.2006, Government of India, Department of Personnel
and Training (DoPT) on the basis of the dictum of Uma Devi (supra)
has issued an Office Memorandum regarding regularization of
qualified workers.
6. On 01.06 2007, again the case of the appellants was
recommended for the purpose of regularization/temporary status as
their services were required for the smooth functioning of the office of
the Commissioner of Income Tax.
7. Respondent No.1 also issued circulars on the basis of the
instructions issued by DoPT on 7.9.2007 providing for regularization
of the incumbents who have served for ten years in the light of the
decision of Uma Devi (supra).
8. Again on 7.11.2007/19.11.2007 information was forwarded
along with a recommendation for the regularization of services of the
3
appellant and again on 1.1.2008 and 31.01.2008 also,
recommendations were made. However services were not
regularized, through Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, U.P. West,
Ghaziabad regularized similarly placed 88 casual employees on
30.01.2009. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Orissa,
Bhubneshwar also regularized similarly situated eight employees on
12.03.2009; orders of regularization have been placed on record
respectively as Annexures P1 and P2. However, similar treatment was
not accorded to the appellants.
9. On 01.06.2009 appellants 1,2 and 3 were sanctioned minimum
of regular pay scale of Group D employees with Dearness Allowance in
accordance with DoPT Circular dated 31.05.2004 and in terms of the
orders of CCIT dated 7.11.2007 and 6.12.2007 on conferral temporary
of status on the employees. On 22.9.2009, Chief Commissioner,
Income Tax, Kolkata also regularized 111 similarly situated casual
employees and 17 employees on 15.10.1990 and Chief Commissioner,
Income Tax, Lucknow regularized 59 similarly situated casual
employees on 22.01.2010. There was further regularization of 35
employees of the office of Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Patna on
20.08.2010. However, the claim of the appellants was rejected by
respondent no.3 though they had served continuously for more than
4
ten years and fulfill the requisite criteria for the purpose of
regularization in terms of the circulars of DoPT and the decision
rendered by this Court in Uma Devi (supra). The appellants have also
given the vacancy position.
10. The appellants filed Original Application before the CAT that was
rejected. Respondent No.3 supplied information under the Right to
Information Act (RTI) with respect to the vacancies w.e.f. 1990 to
2008 that has been placed on record as Annexure P7.
11. The order of the CAT was unsuccessfully questioned in the High
Court; Review Petition was also filed; that has also been dismissed.
Aggrieved thereby the appeals have been preferred.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of
the considered opinion that appointments were only irregular one,
this Court observed in para 53 Uma Devi (supra) thus:
“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases
where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as
explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N.
NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and
referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons
in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and
the employees have continued to work for ten years or more
but without the intervention of orders of courts or of
5
tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of
such employees may have to be considered on merits in the
light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above
referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context,
the Union of India, the State Governments, and their
instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time
measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have
worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not
under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should
further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill
those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in
cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being
now employed. The process must be set in motion within six
months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if
any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened
based on this judgment, but there should be no further by
passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or
making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the
constitutional scheme.”
13. In view of the aforesaid decision, the circulars and regularization
of the similarly situated employees at other places and various
recommendation that were made the services of the appellants ought
to have been regularized in the year 2006; discriminatory treatment
has been meted out to them. As per the decision of Uma Devi (supra),
they were entitled to regularization of services; they did not serve
under the cover of court’s order. Illegality has been committed by not
directing regularization of services.
6
14. We direct that the services of the appellants be regularised w.e.f.
1st July 2006 they are entitled to consequential benefit also let the
respondents comply with the order in a period of three months from
today.
15. The judgments and orders of the High Court and the CAT are set
aside. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
……..................J.
(ARUN MISHRA)
……..................J.
(U.U. LALIT)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 13, 2018
7
ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.10 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 33258-
33259/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-10-2014
in WP No. 741/2014 31-07-2015 in RP No. 185/2015 passed by the High
Court Of M.p At Gwalior)
RAVI VERMA AND ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 13-03-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY U. LALIT
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Osama Ahmad Abbasi, Adv.
Ms. Anushree Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sandeep Sethi, ASG
Mr. Ravi Shankar Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Vimla sinha, Adv.
Mr. Nalin Kohli, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed Reportable order.
Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.
(NEELAM GULATI) (SUMAN JAIN) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER (SIGNED REPORTABLE ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE)