Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL NOs.  2726-2729 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 5681-5684/2014)

@ CC. 19326-19329/2013)  

Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai         …Appellant

Versus

Thiru R. Govindaswamy & Ors.                  …Respondents

WITH

CIVIL  APPEAL NOs. 2730-2731 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 5686-5687/2014)

@ CC. 19982-19983/2013)  

O R D E R

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. These  appeals  have  been  preferred  against  the  impugned  

judgments  and  orders  dated  21.11.2012  and  16.11.2012  in  Writ  

Appeal Nos. 2402, 2403 2404, 2405 of 2012 and 2555, 2556 of 2012

Page 2

passed by the High Court of Madras, by which the High Court has  

regularised the services of part-time sweepers (respondents herein).

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that:

The respondents had been appointed as part-time sweepers by  

appellant from 1987 till 1993 as their initial appointments had been  

issued to the respondents and others on 1.12.1987, 2.5.1991, 1.4.1993,  

10.4.1993, 27.5.1999 and 19.1.2001.  As the respondents and others  

had been working for  more than 10 years,  they filed Writ  Petition  

Nos. 17468, 17470, 17472, 17473, 17469 and 17471 of 2012 before  

the High Court of Madras for seeking regularisation of their services.  

The said Writ Petitions were allowed by the common judgment and  

order dated 23.7.2012 with the direction to regularise the services of  

the  respondents  on  full  time  basis  based  on  the  individual  

representation after verifying their service particulars from the date of  

completion of 10 years of service with time scale of pay.   

Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the writ appeals which were  

dismissed.

Hence, these appeals.  

2

Page 3

3. Shri  P.P.  Rao,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellant  has  submitted  that  a  direction  to  regularise  the  part-time  

employees itself is contrary to law and the said direction could not  

have been issued. It has further been submitted that as the impugned  

judgments and orders had been complied with and the appellant is not  

going to disturb any of the respondents and others, the law should be  

clarified on the issue so that in future the High Court may not use the  

impugned judgment as a precedent.  

4. Per contra, Shri P.R. Kovilan P, learned counsel appearing for  

the  respondents  has  submitted  that  as  the  respondents  had  been  

working  as  part-time  sweepers  for  a  very  long  time  and  not  

regularising  their  services  would  tantamount  to  exploitation.  

Therefore, no interference is called for in these appeals.  

5. The issue  involved here remains restricted as to whether the  

services of the part-time sweepers could have been directed by the  

High Court to be regularized. The issue is no more res integra.

In State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., AIR 2006  

SC 1806, this Court held as under:   

3

Page 4

“There is no fundamental right in those who have been  employed  on  daily  wages  or  temporarily  or  on  contractual  basis,  to claim that  they have a right  to be  absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they  cannot be said to be holders of a post,  since, a regular  appointment  could  be  made  only  by  making  appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles  14 and 16 of  the Constitution.  The right  to  be treated  equally  with  the  other  employees  employed  on  daily  wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment  with those who were regularly employed. That would be  treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to  claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they  have  never  been  selected  in  terms  of  the  relevant  recruitment rules.”

6. In  Union of India & Ors.  v. A.S. Pillai & Ors.,  (2010) 13  

SCC 448, this Court dealt with the issue of regularisation of part-time  

employees and the court refused the relief on the ground that part-

timers are free to get themselves engaged elsewhere and they are not  

restrained from working elsewhere when they are not working for the  

authority/employer.  Being  the  part-time  employees,  they  are  not  

subject to service rules or other regulations which govern and control  

the  regularly  appointed  staff  of  the  department.  Therefore,  the  

question of giving them equal pay for equal work or considering their  

case for regularisation would not arise.   

4

Page 5

7. This Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors.,  

AIR 2011 SC 1193,  has  considered  the  scope  of  regularisation  of  

irregular or part-time appointments in all  possible eventualities and  

laid down well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity  

in pay relevant in the context of the issues involved therein. The same  

are as under:     

“8(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article  226  of  the  Constitution  will  not  issue  directions  for  regularisation,  absorption  or  permanent  continuance,  unless  the  employees  claiming regularisation  had been  appointed  in  pursuance  of  a  regular  recruitment  in  accordance  with  relevant  rules  in  an  open  competitive  process,  against  sanctioned  vacant  posts.  The  equality  clause  contained  in  Articles  14  and  16  should  be  scrupulously  followed  and  Courts  should  not  issue  a  direction for  regularisation  of  services  of  an  employee  which would be violative of  the constitutional  scheme.  While something that is irregular for want of compliance  with  one  of  the  elements  in  the  process  of  selection  which  does  not  go  to  the  root  of  the  process,  can  be  regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to  the  constitutional  scheme  and/or  appointment  of  ineligible candidates cannot be regularised. (ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad  hoc  or  daily-wage  employee,  under  cover  of  some  interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him  any  right  to  be  absorbed  into  service,  as  such  service  would  be  “litigious  employment”.  Even  temporary,  ad  hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let  alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such  employee to claim regularisation,  if he is not working  against  a  sanctioned post.  Sympathy  and sentiment  

5

Page 6

cannot  be  grounds  for  passing  any  order  of  regularisation in the absence of a legal right. (iii)  Even  where  a  scheme  is  formulated  for  regularisation  with  a  cut-off  date  (that  is  a  scheme  providing that persons who had put in a specified number  of years of service and continuing in employment as on  the cut-off  date),  it  is  not  possible  to others who were  appointed  subsequent  to  the  cut-off  date,  to  claim  or  contend that  the scheme should be applied to them by  extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing  of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates. (iv)  Part-time  employees  are  not  entitled  to  seek  regularisation as  they  are  not  working  against  any  sanctioned  posts.  There  cannot  be  a  direction  for  absorption,  regularisation  or  permanent  continuance  of  part-time temporary employees. (v)  Part-time  temporary  employees  in  government- run  institutions  cannot  claim  parity  in  salary with  regular employees of the Government on the principle of  equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private  employment,  even  if  serving  full  time,  seek  parity  in  salary with government employees. The right to claim a  particular  salary  against  the  State  must  arise  under  a  contract or under a statute.” (Emphasis added)

8. The present appeals are squarely covered by clauses (ii), (iv)  

and (v) of the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, the appeals are allowed.  

However, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case as Shri  

P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel has submitted that the appellant has  

already implemented the impugned judgments and does not want to  

disturb the services of the respondents, the services of the respondents  

which stood regularised should not be affected.   

6

Page 7

With the aforesaid observations, the appeals stand disposed of  

accordingly. No order as to costs.  

…………………………….J.           (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN

 ………………………………...J.              (A.K. SIKRI)

New Delhi, February 21, 2014

7