AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, J.—The petitioner is admittedly appointed temporarily as casual labourer in the second respondent Council, which is purely
an autonomous body. Contending that the service of the petitioner as casual labourer has to be regularised under the Casual Labourers (grant of
temporary status and regularisation of service) Scheme evolved by the Ministry of Law, Finance and Personnel Administration, the petitioner seeks
a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to regularise his service from March 1991 and to pay the wages, allowances and attendant benefits
on par with the regular permanent employees doing identical work.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the rights of the petitioner conferred under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 23(1) of the Constitution
of India would be violated, if the service of the petitioner is not regularised. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of this Court dated 4.4.1997
in W.P. No. 16080 of 1994, wherein E. Padmanabhan, J, following the order of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1003 of 1990,
directed the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners therein.
Opposing the above contentions and placing reliance on the averments stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, learned
Additional Central Government Standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Casual Labourers (grant of temporary status and
regularisation of service) Scheme is not applicable to the respondents, as the respondents are purely an autonomous body and that the respondents
having identified the surplus manpower, formulated Voluntary Retirement Schemes, pursuant to which almost 800 employees retired voluntarily
from the respondent organisation. In any event, the petitioner, being a temporary casual labourer, is not entitled to seek a writ of Mandamus as
prayed for, as a matter of right.
I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.
It is true that E. Padmanabhan, J, in an identical case, by order dated 4.4.1997 in W.P. No. 16080 of 1994, directed the respondents to
regularise the service of the petitioner therein, of course, following the order of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1003 of 1990. But, it is
trite law that it may not be proper for this Court to direct the employer to regularise the service of the temporary employees, particularly when the
scheme under which temporary employees were appointed come to an end, activities of the employer is brought down and surplus manpower are
identified by the employer, the voluntary retirement scheme is formulated, vide Talluri Venkaiah Naidu and another Vs. Public Prosecutor, High
Court of Andhra Pradesh, HAFIQ AHMED & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. reported in 1999 (9) Supreme 221, and
Ramakrishna Kamat and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, . In the instant case, the respondents have taken a clear stand that they could
not accommodate the petitioner in a regular post and they have identified the surplus manpower in their organisation and also formulated a
voluntary retirement scheme to facilitate the permanent employees to avail such scheme.
That apart, the law as to the rights of the temporary employees seeking regularisation is now well settled by the Apex Court in Talluri Venkaiah
Naidu and another Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, that the High Court was not right in giving direction to regularise the
temporary employees who were engaged only for the project, which was completed and closed due to the non-availability of funds, and that the
direction of the High Court to regularise such temporary employees by creating posts and continuing them in spite of non availability of funds and
work is absolutely illegal.
Again, in HAFIQ AHMED & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. reported in 1999 (9) Supreme 221, the Apex Court has held that
when the posts are created temporarily for fulfilling the needs of a particular project of scheme limited in its duration come to an end on account of
the need for the project itself having come to an end either because the project was fulfilled or had to be abandoned wholly or partially for want of
funds, the employer cannot by a writ of Mandamus be directed to continue employing such employees as have been dislodged because such a
direction would amount to requisition for creation of posts though not required by the employer and funding such posts though the employer did
not have the funds available for the purpose.
The Apex Court, in a recent decision Ramakrishna Kamat and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, , reiterating the views taken in Talluri
Venkaiah Naidu and another Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and HAFIQ AHMED & ANR. v. STATE OF
RAJASTHAN & ORS. reported in 1999 (9) Supreme 221, held that it may not be proper to regularise the service of the temporary appointees.
Applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of temporary employees, I am satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled to seek a
writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to regularise his service, as a matter of right, and therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner
cannot be granted, as such an exercise of power by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is, time and again, deprecated by the
Apex Court.
For all these reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.