If Policy Decision Is Taken To Regularize Daily Wage Workers, Benefit Must Be Extended To All; Authorities Cannot Pick And Choose- SC
The Supreme Court has observed that if the competent authority takes a policy decision within the permissible framework, its benefit must be extended to all those who fall within the parameters of such a policy and authorities cannot be permitted to pick and choose in such circumstances.
The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “It is true that an employee engaged on daily wages has no legally vested right to seek regularisation of his services. However, if the competent authority takes a policy decision within the permissible framework, its benefit must be extended to all those who fall within the parameters of such a policy. Authorities cannot be permitted to pick and choose in such circumstances.”
AAG Bharat Shrivastava appeared for the Petitioners while AOR Akshat Shrivastava appeared for the Respondents.
A Special Leave Petition was filed by the State assailing the order passed Madhya Pradesh High Court which had observed that Respondent No. 1 was entitled to similar treatment of regularisation which was granted to the persons similarly situated and engaged subsequent to Respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 1 was initially engaged as a daily rated employee at the Collectorate rate in 1993 but his services were terminated in 1995. After a long gap, on the recommendation of the Screening Committee, he was reinstated in the year 2006.
The issue that arose for consideration was whether Respondent No. 1 was entitled to be absorbed as a regular employee, keeping in view the Government policy/Circular and the long period of service rendered by him as a daily wager.
The High Court had held that respondent No.1 was entitled to regularisation of his services as several persons junior to him had already been absorbed. The intra-court appeal preferred by the State was also turned down by a Division Bench of the High Court vide the impugned order.
The Supreme Court, after perusing the evidence and material on record filed by the Petitioner-State, said that the affidavits/documents were vague, evasive and misleading.
The Court further held, “The fact that respondent No.1 has worked as a daily wager from 2005 to 2009 is not in dispute. The eligibility for the post he holds has also not been controverted. The fact that he initially entered through the process in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is also not a serious issue. That being so, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court directing the petitioners to confer the status of a regular employee on respondent No.1.”
Accordingly, the Petition was dismissed and the State was directed to grant all the benefits, including arrears of pay and seniority, to respondent No.1 from the due date.
Cause Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Shyam Kumar Yadav and Anr.
Appearances:
Petitioners: AAG Bharat Shrivastava, AOR Sunny Choudhary and Advocate Abhinav Shrivastava.
Respondents: AOR Akshat Shrivastava, Advocates NB Chaudhary, Satvic Mathur and Pooja Shrivastava.