- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 3 January 1996
- Bench
- K. Ramaswamy, G. B. Pattanaik
- Result
- Appeal allowed.
Headnote
Constitution of India, 1950:
Articles 226, I 36--Daily wagers on muster roll--Paid from funds pro-vided by Central Government--Project completed and closed due to non-avail-ability offunds-&rvices dispensed with-Writ Petition-High Court order-ing re-engagement of the employees-On appeal held: no vested right is cre-ated on temporary employment-Non-availability of vacancies--Courts to adopt pragmatic approach-Regularisation/Creation of posts cannot be directed--Service Law-Regularisation.
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
Leave granted.
Heard Counsel on both sides.
The facts are that the respondents were engaged on daily wages on mus-ter roll basis in Central Scheme and were paid out of the funds provided by the Central Government. It is stated that after the Scheme was closed their serv-ices were dispensed with. When the respondents filed the writ petition in the High Court, the High Court gave interim directi.on on November 18, 1992 and directed their re-engagement elsewhere. Against the aforesaid interim direc-tion, this appeal by special leave has heen filed.
It is seen that when the project is completed and closed due to non-availability of funds, the employees have to go along with its closure. The High Court was not right in giving the direction to regularise them or to con-tinue them in other places. No vested right is created in temporary employ-ment. Directions cann_ot be given to regularise their services in the absence of any existing vacancies nor can directions be given to the State to create posts in a non-exist~nt establislunent. The Court would adopt pragn1atic approach in giving directions. !he directions would amount to creating of posts and continuing them despite non-availability of the work. We are of the consid-ered view that the directions issued by the High Court are absolutely illegal warranting our interference. The order of the High Court is, therefore, set side.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1539of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.92 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in C.W.P. No. 860 of 1992.
Appearances
Naresh K. Sharma for the Appellant.
Uma Datta for the Respondents.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.