Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors v. Smt. Susheela Prasad And Ors

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS. v. SMT. SUSHEELA PRASAD AND ORS. NOVEMBER 27, 2007 [DR.ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHW AR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] Service Law-Regularization of service-Of contract employees-On the ground of long rendition of service-Courts below [c ]directing consideration of their regularization-On appeal, held: Matter remitted to High Court for considering the matter in the light ofUma Devi's case. The respondents (employees on contact basis) had filed application before Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking regularization of their services on the ground oflong rendition of service. The Tribunal directed for considering their cases for appointment on regular basis. Writ petition against the order was dismissed by High Court. In appeal to this Court appellant-employer contended that the order was contrary to the law laid down by Supreme Court in *Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors., [2006) 4 SCC 1. Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court HELD: 1. The question of regularization on the ground oflong rendition of service was the subject matter in Uma Devi's case. Therefore, the matter is remitted to the High Court to consider the case afresh in the light of the said decision. [Paras 8 and 9) [587-B; 590-A] G Secretary, State o.f Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors., [2006) 4sec1, followed. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal and Ors. v. Lama Jain 586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. A and Ors .. [2006 J 11 sec 350, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5422 of 2007. From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.7.2005 of the High B Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. (S) No. 13440/2004. R. Mohan. A.S.G. and B.V. Balaram Das for the Appellants. Ravindra Srivastava and B.K. Satija for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition D No.13440 of 2004. The appellants had challenged the composite order of 2004. The appellants had challenged the composite order 2004. The appellants had challenged the composite order The appellants had challenged the composite order appellants had challenged the composite order had challenged the composite order challenged the composite order the composite order composite order order dated 13.11.1997 passed in OA No.69111995 and OA No.89/1996 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (in short 'CAT'). The respondents had moved CAT under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. 1985 (in short 'the Act') seeking E regularization of their services. D No.13440 of 2004. The appellants had challenged the composite order of 2004. The appellants had challenged the composite order 2004. The appellants had challenged the composite order The appellants had challenged the composite order appellants had challenged the composite order had challenged the composite order challenged the composite order the composite order composite order order 3. The stand of the respondents before the CAT was that they have been on duties as Data Entry Operators on contract basis and were being paid at a rate ofRs.10 per hour up to the maximum of Rs.50/- per day. They have sought for regularization placing reliance on the factum of long F rendition of service. 4. In response, the present appellants contended that the respondents were not departmental employees and their grievances cannot be agitated before the CAT. Placing reliance on some other decisions rendered by G the CAT, the stand of the present appellants was turned down and direction was given for considering their cases for appointment on regular basis. 5. A writ petition was filed before the High Court, by the appellants which was dismissed by the impugned order. 6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants HY afhAed wre oan can WS Jd 0ਵੰ,0 27, 2007 (a. Wofds UAT WS Saved Ay UST, AA.) He ASO—Heat oT fSutHstadS—da Ut agHurgmti st—'',O——NUTS,O, +P:ਲ>:HHS BHCelt HHS twos fed fee Set Su MTSS O TUA Shem fomr| Jers (Huda ywra '= adgHu't)5 aud ulfSufHstads ct Har atest a,TAA TT wag BY AH Sa He Cer Atl fefaas d fouihsWU '[ge UMHS § JU ad fest fomr| SA WSTSS fev US'3 yieagst-HSA d& UMe atst fa JaH *Hasd,o'r] aAadgWS Jd ESH CH Cet nS dd, [2006] 4nin.:@.:@. 1?ਵ0Aੱ/ :@। +P:ਲ>: 1. '3 f6utHstads & ASS BH Cet t HHS fedfea’ SUS All fH Be, '3 tease Set CuMe SS S SUA Stor fem TI[*P0> 8ye 9] Hasd,SH adated WS Id HGH CH eet wS Jd, [2006] 4nin.:@.:@. 1, .> *>ਲ+>। fATES wus)? AldHisane : ATES UIs SAT 5422 SF 2007. HO Yen ot Cu wees ABU fev 28.7.2005 tt uifsH CHS wS wen S fASaSG.ut. (A) Sad 13440/2004 fed J. wg HIS ENA we tS yoo oA uiwagsat wat, Slecd HeHSe WS Stet. Ash Asad Set. Woes acne fA ulTJ Heteny fo 2.cd 13440 .O 20040ਲfed uA ats Te wren S di wril@agset 3 A'ee © d = 2...,naeGuda,naoud (ae fedASST')ung Gt Syd 691/1995yn 6P Syd 89/1996fed13.11.1997', 1985 (ee fednae') .@ />0> 19WOS AreSt aS nus Reret 2 feufestags Bet wont fest Ht 3.AleSt idl Fe Seat w Hat fea Ht fa Gu set uy]od wtuded ef dsatrnog ',OfsGemr' 10gue a cd aS nfdasy 50S'S 3d36 als Ht fd" All Gat 5 BX AH Sa AST CEU Sa '3 SdH adfent feufystagsBet YSst alts 4.Wey fed,Hae wuisags st 6 owe als fa Head feast aGHoSH Sd ASus Bot ui frafest } Aect nidl Corer oot A Hae Het Urs Fee Te gy Jd'3 3dH adfenr, ',O-(SdH fess Te! 6. wUIS ¢ AHS feu, wuisaga et Set fAfir ys sale S UST ats fa et age =sHest fH netwes Ut AfeueUn WSs dd YaH CH eet vB dg., [2006] 4WH.:@.:@. 1feud grr foamy F 7.Agee Uy tale 6 oH UA Soe ats far vila Ht.i.ra.3 fla ufses cue ',OSoH ast Hue ose age aH ad ',MUS S USA ATSo Gd Jet UteI 8. BH AH Sa Ae HIE ade U wag '3S feufHstads G HS CH Cet t HHS(Bud),L0 '3 fi cHst atst fem Ft: "33. ' 'aoJS ATHeE wet J Gg fea J fa fourths saat 'arg fst ast oe,fede ffa Hae,-Sst Ss UGE ast Aret UStet J ws atfsuftstads Bet dec ad ast We ote! foufkstads t fageut eS HHS HY Sd '= fHWud '3 idl <a Ja fa aA agHoT 6 Is AH Bet aH age ct »rfomr fest Tet J,CHS,Hdd dH Juard Bet Hfeqad GHa' ct va alsfaat St SH 6 AH TIS ad (oer Wet WTS" 45.,MTS EH IS aS ystes Jet Jo fa Halas fenast & as AH Set WS As HHTfed atel SS AN SH aH asa dd! fo od d fa dt feyast fa wHeTS aI nwdéuctya faesgH,GH 6 wruet dSadt ct fan TUS od Jel Sd YS net OS GradHele'd ade’ Jl fd HU J Hae’ J fa Ga Sodtoa ct Afest fev adi ge -Ss otgenoaSat feg-fasta Ga Whe ay gud tt as fev dear at A Gg rust Tas ad Hal nS as = 6x 6 foo J GH 6 Helard ad Se" J ud fide fA ro” ',O,fa Gfas adiJeg fa faqast 3 Adard fayast tt Hfedad una’ 6 s3 fea We we feg feag atsae fa Ft fenrast west ai ndugtga sg ', '= aotdium pre! fH a],Hdd fouast & a dg sdiat Seto Ft fos d A fa Hes ST JI 'sJdodagrtefugemiagsgygyugSddifod uUtSg Set A,ot St weSs GH AGH S aet TIS Sd U Hat! fA fawn aWHE Ft Saat Sac ',O *B0@ ,0uUset SITCE HIE ST TycH,WS Had BT ats" tamer,st fed fhge fd nae oe J fa ay Sa Ue-wsWH ET,da x x x47.nH aH ade Set fHedt Jd ues aH ct feecne Cfes ve ct users TS Heys fomt Fi '3 od Jat,St Gd fH IST ufgsH Wee Jd fa feuast nASet,& Odl Yad Hae’ Ad Un fev fayast fade Sfes ve yfafont 6 wuEt St Tt ast A Hat,Sa Ret afHns S'S HSS HH|ed adal fA wet,wHeroh,SacTt wfouths afm 28 ene Cute ct faGdt 6 Hess yea Vid Sot earfeur a Hae"! feat od fas A Hae fa THO feat ferasm 6 Ad Tae Ht Gai 6 Hat wee w aetemfet atat dl da Hfegtad 3d 'Une fed Haat Fee AE Ul Ha SI SHS DIS HAE Bet adh yarfour AT H CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. SUSHEELA PRASAD (PASA YAT, J.] submitted that the decision of the High Court is contrary to law as laid A down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Secretary v. State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors., (2006] 4 SCC I. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that since the CAT had relied on an earlier judgment and High Court rightly B did not find any distinguishable feature, the appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 8. The question of regularization on the ground oflong rendition of service was the subject matter in Uma Devi's case (supra). The said issue has been elaborately dealt with in the judgment. It was inter alia held as C follows: "33. It is not necessary to notice all the decisions of this Court on this aspect. By and large what emerges is that regular recruitment should be insisted upon, only in a contingency and ad hoc D appointment can be made in a permanent vacancy, but the same should soon be followed by a regular recruitment and that appointments to nonavailable posts should not be taken note of for regularization. The cases directing regularization have mainly proceeded on the basis that having permitted the employee to E work for some period, he should be absorbed, without really laying down any law to that effect, after discussing the constitutional scheme for public employment. 45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent, courts are swayed by the fact that the concerned person has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not G aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain -- not at arms length -- since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be H