Service Jurisprudence: For Regularization Of Daily Wager Initial Appointment Must Be Done By Competent Authority- SC

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court and observed that a daily rated employee could seek regularisation only if he had been appointed by a competent authority and had been working for a sanctioned post.

The Bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors (2006) 4 SCC 1 and observed that “initial appointment must be done by the competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily rated employee must be working. These two conditions were clearly missing in the case of the present appellant. The Division Bench of the High Court therefore has to our mind rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the order.”

Advocate Ajay Choudhary appeared for the appellant and Advocate Sunny Choudhary appeared for the respondent

In this case, the appeal was preferred against the order of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court wherein the single-judge decision was set aside. The Single Judge had allowed the writ petition preferred by the appellant and had directed for regularization of the appellant from the date on which the juniors were regularized.

Thereafter, Letters Patent Appeal was preferred before the division bench of the High Court by the State government wherein it was held that the appellant's employment could not be regularised because his initial employment did not satisfy the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Uma Devi's case.

The Apex Court noted that the appellant was never appointed against any post. His appointment was never made by the competent authority and there were no posts available at the time for regularisation.

The Apex Court observed that the two conditions which were necessary for regularizing were not fulfilled and said that "In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Uma Devi (supra), the appellant had no case for regularization. There is no scope, hence, for our interference with the order of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court."

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title- Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment