2021 (9) TMI 1451 - SC - Indian Laws

Regularization of adhoc employees - eligibility for pensionary benefits - HELD THAT - The pensionary benefits which are being disbursed to the appellants shall not be disturbed. Likewise, the pensionary payments which are being disbursed to the respondents shall be paid over in accordance with law - No recoveries shall be made of any nature whatsoever from the appellants Insofar as the companion appeals are concerned, as recorded earlier, CWP No 16925 of 2003 and CWP No 4490 of 1994 were instituted on the basis of the observations of the Single Judge in Malook Singh s case. That aspect has been duly clarified both in the Letters Patent Appeal and by the Single Judge in the judgment dated 5 January 2011. Hence, no further directions are required in the companion appeals. Both sets of appeals are disposed of. Appeal disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Regularization and seniority of ad hoc employees.
2. Applicability of the judgment in Malook Singh's case.
3. Counting of ad hoc service for determining seniority.
4. Impact of subsequent judgments overruling Malook Singh's case.
5. Practical difficulties in revising seniority lists after a long period.
6. Protection of pensionary benefits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Regularization and Seniority of Ad Hoc Employees:
The appellants were appointed as clerks on an ad hoc basis in 1975-1976 and their services were regularized on 3 May 1977, effective from 1 April 1977. The policy of regularization stated that seniority would be determined from the date of regularization, with ad hoc service considered for inter se seniority among the ad hoc employees.

2. Applicability of the Judgment in Malook Singh's Case:
A writ petition challenged the seniority list as of 31 December 1978, claiming the benefit of ad hoc service towards seniority. The Single Judge ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating that ad hoc service should count towards seniority. However, the Division Bench in a subsequent appeal clarified that the judgment would not serve as a binding precedent on whether ad hoc service should count for seniority.

3. Counting of Ad Hoc Service for Determining Seniority:
The Supreme Court has consistently held that ad hoc service cannot be counted for determining seniority if the initial appointment was a stop-gap arrangement and not made following due procedure. This principle was reinforced in cases like Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra and Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India. The Court reiterated that ad hoc appointments made without following proper rules do not qualify for seniority benefits.

4. Impact of Subsequent Judgments Overruling Malook Singh's Case:
The judgment in Malook Singh's case was overruled by the Division Bench in Gurmail Singh's case, which held that ad hoc service should not count for seniority. This was further supported by other judgments, including the dismissal of Special Leave Petitions by the Supreme Court, thereby affirming that ad hoc service cannot be considered for seniority.

5. Practical Difficulties in Revising Seniority Lists After a Long Period:
Revising seniority lists after several decades poses significant practical challenges. Most of the involved parties have retired, and redrawing seniority would result in administrative burdens and potential litigation. The Court acknowledged these difficulties and emphasized the impracticality of revising seniority at this stage.

6. Protection of Pensionary Benefits:
Given the long duration of the proceedings and the retirement of most parties, the Court directed that the pensionary benefits of the appellants should be protected. No recoveries should be made from the appellants, and their pensionary payments should continue undisturbed. This decision was made under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure justice and avoid further complications for retired employees.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Division Bench, holding that ad hoc service cannot be counted for seniority. However, it protected the pensionary benefits of the appellants, ensuring no recoveries are made and their payments continue as per the existing arrangements. The appeals were disposed of, and no further directions were required for the companion appeals based on the earlier judgments.

← Previous Next →