Can Temporary Employees Claim Regularisation After 17 Years? No, Says Supreme Court
The State of Gujarat and others vs R.J. Pathan and others
Listen to this judgment
• 4 min readKey Takeaways
• A court cannot direct regularisation of temporary employees merely because they have worked for a long time.
• Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act does not apply to employees appointed on a temporary basis.
• Absorption of temporary employees into regular service requires a sanctioned post, which was absent in this case.
• The principle established in Umadevi does not apply to temporary appointments made for specific projects.
• Creating supernumerary posts for regularisation of temporary employees is not within the jurisdiction of the High Court.
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India recently addressed the issue of regularisation of temporary employees in the case of The State of Gujarat and others vs R.J. Pathan and others. The Court ruled that merely working for an extended period does not entitle temporary employees to regularisation, especially when their appointments were made for a specific project and lacked the necessary sanctioned posts for permanent employment.
Case Background
The case arose from the appointment of the respondents as drivers on a contractual basis for a fixed period of eleven months under the Post-Earthquake Redevelopment Programme initiated by the Government of Gujarat. Initially appointed in 2004, the respondents were to work on a temporary project aimed at rehabilitation following an earthquake. Upon the project's closure, instead of terminating their services, the State Government decided to transfer them to the Indian Red Cross Society. However, the respondents challenged this placement and sought regularisation of their services through a writ petition.
The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed their petition, stating that their appointments were temporary and did not confer any rights to regularisation. The respondents then appealed to the Division Bench of the High Court, which directed the State to consider their cases for regularisation, citing their long service of seventeen years.
What The Lower Authorities Held
The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the respondents were appointed for a fixed term and were not regular employees of the Government. The Division Bench, however, took a different view, directing the State to consider the respondents for regularisation based on their long service. This decision was contested by the State, leading to the present appeal.
The Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court, while hearing the appeal, highlighted several critical points. Firstly, it noted that the respondents were appointed in a temporary project and had no claim to regularisation as they were not part of any sanctioned posts in a regular establishment. The Court emphasized that the Division Bench of the High Court had erred in directing the State to consider the respondents for absorption and regularisation without acknowledging the temporary nature of their appointments.
The Court further clarified that the respondents had continued in service for a significant period due to an interim order from the High Court, which should not be counted towards their claim for regularisation. The Supreme Court reiterated that the principles laid down in the Umadevi case, which aimed to prevent irregular appointments and provide benefits to those who had been irregularly appointed, did not apply to the facts of this case. The Court stressed that the respondents were not irregularly appointed in sanctioned posts but were instead temporary employees in a project-specific unit.
Statutory Interpretation
The Supreme Court's ruling involved interpreting the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act and the principles established in previous judgments regarding regularisation. The Court made it clear that the provisions of the Act do not extend to employees appointed on a temporary basis for specific projects, as was the case with the respondents. The Court also emphasized that the creation of supernumerary posts for the purpose of regularisation is not within the jurisdiction of the High Court, as it lacks the authority to direct such actions without a legal basis.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for several reasons. It clarifies the legal position regarding the regularisation of temporary employees, particularly those appointed for specific projects. The ruling reinforces the principle that long service alone does not confer rights to regularisation, especially when the appointments were made under temporary conditions. It also delineates the limits of judicial intervention in matters of employment, particularly concerning the creation of posts and the regularisation of employees.
Final Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Gujarat, quashing the order of the Division Bench of the High Court that directed the State to consider the respondents for regularisation. The Court restored the Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition, thereby affirming that the respondents had no right to claim regularisation based on their temporary appointments.
Case Details
- Case Title: The State of Gujarat and others vs R.J. Pathan and others
- Citation: 2022 INSC 342
- Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
- Bench: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagarathna
- Date of Judgment: 2022-03-24