Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. What fell for consideration is clear from paragraph 10 of the judgment of Umadevis case where the Supreme Court has set out the circumstances in which the matter came before the Constitution Bench. Paragraph 10 reads as under: 10) When these matters came up before a Bench of two Judges, the learned Judges referred the cases to a Bench of three Judges. The order of reference is reported in Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi. This Court noticed that in the matter of regularisation of ad hoc employees, there were conflicting decisions by three-Judge Benches of this Court and by two-Judge Benches and hence the question required to be considered by a larger Bench. When the matters came up before a three-Judge Bench, the Bench in turn felt that the matter required consideration by a Constitution Bench in view of the conflict and in the light of the arguments raised by the Additional Solicitor General. The order of reference is reported in Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi. It appears to be proper to quote that order of reference at this stage. It reads: (SCC p. 45, paras 1-5)

(2) On the other hand, Mr M.C. Bhandare, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the employees urged that such a scheme for regularisation is consistent with the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. . We are, therefore, called upon to resolve this issue here. We have to lay down the law. We have to approach the question as a constitutional court should.

Page 0972

22. It is thus clear that what fell for the consideration of the Supreme Court was the question of regularisation of ad hoc employees. It is also clear that what was urged before the Supreme Court by the learned Additional Solicitor General was that the scheme of regularisation of ad hoc or temporary employees was repugnant to the Constitution.

35. Thus in paragraph 26 of the judgment in Umadevis case the Supreme Court expressly overruled Piara Singhs case only to the extent that it recognised a right in ad hoc or temporary employees to absorption or permanency or regularization and required the State to prepare a scheme in that regard. The Supreme Court neither considered nor overruled the ratio contained in paragraph 46 of the judgment in Piara Singhs case.

36. The subsequent paragraphs of the judgment in Umadevis case also deal only with the question of the claim to permanency or absorption or regularisation by ad hoc or temporary employees. The observations of the Supreme Court therefore pertain to such claims and not to the contentions urged before us. This is clear inter-alia from paragraphs 42 to 46 of the judgment.

40. Mr.Khandare further submitted that the said ratio in paragraph 46 of the judgment in Piara Singhs case must be viewed in the context of paragraph 44 of the judgment in that case which reads as under:

44. Before parting with this case, we think it appropriate to say a few words concerning the issue of regularisation of ad hoc/temporary employees in Government service.

He submitted that the directions in paragraphs 45 to 50 were, therefore, part of a scheme for the regularisation of the services of ad hoc employees. According to him, the right of regularization having been overruled by the Constitution Bench, it logically follows that every direction in aid thereof must necessarily be held to have been impliedly overruled.