Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. The principle so stated provides an appropriate guide to deal with variety of fact situations while considering regularisation of ad hoc/temporary employees, daily rated workers and casual labourers.

13. Mr. Vakil, learned Counsel for the Reserve Bank would submit that Piara Singh's case would seal the fate of the ticca mazdoors, who according to his submissions, could not be directed to be regularised and or absorbed in the Reserve Bank's permanent service in the cadre of mazdoors. Mr. Vakil, therefore, firstly read the caution note for the Courts to follow as appearing in Piara Singh's case. Accordingly, the Court must while giving directions for regularisation of service act with due care and caution. It must first ascertain the relevant facts, and must be cognizant of the several situations and eventualities that may arise on account of such directions. A practical and pragmatic view has to be taken, inasmuch as every such direction not only tells upon the public exchequer but also has the effect of increasing the cadre strength of a particular service, class or category. Following factors are required to be borne in mind while ordering regularisation of the above class of employees:

(i) Whether there are vacancies available for such employees.

(ii) Whether they are sponsored by the Employment Exchange

(iii) Whether they are eligible and/or qualified for the post at the time of their appointments, and

(iv) Whether their records of service since the appointment are satisfactory.

14. Mr. Vakil also drew our attention to the observation that mere continuation of an ad hoc employee for one year cannot lead to the presumption that there is a need for a regular post. He finally submitted that as cautioned by the Apex Court in the case of Piara Singh no blanket direction could be issued for regularisation and/or absorption of daily rated workers. His submission was that such an en bloc regularisation is entirely outside the scope of the principle of regularisation. In Piara Singh's case the facts indicate that for the last several years a large number of appointments were made to Class III and IV service in the States of Punjab and Haryana on ad hoc basis without reference to Public Service Commission or the Subordinate Service Selection Board and without adhering to employment exchange requirements. Some of the employees having so found their place in the establishment came to be regularised by various orders passed by the respective Governments on account of the fact that they fulfilled the criteria laid down by the orders so passed. Thus, who left out approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which gave en bloc direction for regularisation of the ad hoc/temporary employees, daily wagers and casual labourers, who had put in more than one year's service. It can thus be seen that the Government (employer) was mindful of the workers who had already been in employment, though irregularly appointed. The left out workmen could hardly be regularised as they were found to be not fulfilling the criteria laid down by the orders of regularisation passed by the Government. This is one side of the picture, which would obviously call for the application of the first part of the principle quoted above.