Khim Singh and Others vs Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Sri Gopal Narain, Advocate present for the Petitioners as well as Sri V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri T.C. Pande, Advocate present for the Respondents.

The Petitioners who are the employees of Indian Institute of petroleum (from hereinafter referred to as the "Institute") were earlier working as daily wagers/ contractual employment, etc., in the Institute. Consequently, by order of the Court a scheme for regularisation was framed by the Institute. Pursuant to the said scheme, the Petitioners and similarly situated persons were regularised in the Institute. The scheme which was framed, under which such regularisation was made, clearly stipulated a clause, namely, Clause 5 (c) which reads as follows:

General Conditions:

(a) ...

(b) ...

(c) Casual/contractual workers on regularization will not be entitled to any benefits for the past period of Casual/contractual services rendered by them as casual/contractual workers.

Consequent to the aforesaid clause of the scheme, it was also stipulated very clearly in Clause 13 of the appointment order itself that they will not be entitled to any benefits for the past period of services rendered by them on casual/contractual basis.

Now the Petitioners claim that although no monetary benefit or even a claim of seniority can be made by them in view of the clearly stated provisions in the scheme of regularisation as well as the letter of appointment, yet the services they have put in as casual/daily wager, etc. in the Institute must be counted at the time of giving them pensionary benefits. Since this was denied to the Petitioners, they have filed a writ petition before this Court.

The Institute is represented by Sri V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate who has relied upon the aforesaid clause of the scheme as well as the specific Clause 13 of the appointment order of the Petitioners itself. Since the scheme itself clearly visualises that casual/contractual workers on regularisation will not be entitled to any benefit for the past period of casual/contractual services, such a claim cannot be given to the Petitioners. All the same, the Petitioners have relied upon two Supreme Court judgments, namely, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P. Agrawal and Another, and Director General, ICMR v. Dr. D.K. Jain and Anr. In J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra), the issue before the Court was as to under what circumstances the reinstatement with backwages have to be given and under what circumstances the reinstatement has to be made of an employee but backwages are not liable to be given. That was the issue before the Court. Undoubtedly the Court made the following remarks in paragraph 19, which reads as under:

Similarly, in such cases, even where continuity of service is directed, it should only be for purposes of pensionary/retirement benefits, and not for other benefits like increments, promotions, etc.

Even the above observations of the Apex Court cannot be of any help to the Petitioners as the said observations were made by the Hon''ble Apex Court in an entirely different context. Moreover, even the facts of the case are not applicable in the present case in as much as in the present case the Petitioners have gained employment/regularisation in view of the regularisation scheme which clearly stipulates that benefits of past service as contractual/casual labourers will not be granted.

The writ petition is totally devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.