Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners emphatically canvassed that the petitioners were albeit, appointed on dally wages irrespective of the fact whether there was any vacancy, but their unabated continuance should be reckoned with to merit consideration that there is regular need for their services and that they are being made to work on daily wage basis with the specific purpose to a design of balking them of the benefits of permanency in service. The learned counsel placed credence on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, JT 1992 (5) SC 179 : Khagesh Kumar and others v. I. G. Registration and others, JT 1995 (7) SC 545 and State of U. P. and others v. Putti Lal. (1998) 1 UPLBEC 313. Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners in the first two petitions submitted that in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in Khagesh Kumar (supra), the petitioners are entitled to he considered for regularisation under the provisions of the U. P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, as amended upto date. Sri P. C. Jhingan, appearing for the petitioners in the third petition, pressed for regularisation and 'equal pay for equal work' especially on the dint of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dharvad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Employees' Association and others v. State of Karnataka and Others, 1990 (3) UPLBEC 2151, and the decision of this Court in the case of State of U. P. v. Putti Lal (supra). Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, quipped that the Rules of 1979 are not intended for application to the facts of the present case and in the absence of any scheme for regularisation and requisite number of posts, the petitioners were not entitled to claim regularisation nor were they entitled to claim parity in the matter of pay with their regularly recruited counter-parts in the department.

6. In State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, JT 1995 (5) SC 179, the question regarding regularisation of ad hoc appointees came up for consideration before the Supreme Court. It was held that normal rule would be regular appointment through the prescribed agency but exigency of administration may sometime call for an ad hoc and/or temporary appointment to be made. Such ad hoc or temporary appointee, the Apex Court held, if allowed to continue for a fairly long span, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and service record and appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State. Direction given by the High Court in that case for regularisation of every ad hoc or temporary employees who had been continued for one year was held to be totally 'untenable' and 'unsustainable'.

7. In the conspectus of the above decisions, I am of the considered view that 'wholesale' and 'unconditional' orders cannot be issued by this Court directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners, and in no case such direction can be issued in the absence of posts and a scheme/rules visualising regularisation on certain principles and norms framed in consonance with the related constitutional provisions for 'regularisation' has not been claimed herein in the above sense of the term. Rather it comprehends induction into the cadre of the service which in the absence of posts and a legally framed scheme cannot be allowed except on pains of violating the Constitution and relevant service Rules. Petitioners' appointments are not referable to any vacant posts nor such appointments could be said to be ad hoc appointments de hors the rules. The question of 'regularisation' in the popular sense of the term, therefore, does not arise. The provisions of the U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, have no application to such appointments. Khagesh Kumar and others v. I. G. Registration and others, JT 1995 (7) SC 545, reliance on which was placed for the petitioners, would not apply to the facts of the present case. There the appointments were made on posts referred to in paragraphs 95 and 96 of the Manual, i.e., posts on permanent and temporary strength of the Establishment" under the special sanction given by the Governor. It was under these circumstances that daily wage appointments were treated by the Supreme Court in that case as ad hoc appointments within the meaning of the Regularisation Rules referred to above.