http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THROUGH THESECRETARY AGRICULTURE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NODHA RAM & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (1)   220        1996 SCALE  (1)253

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Heard Counsel on both sides.      The facts  are that  the respondents  were  engaged  on daily wages  on muster roll basis in Central Scheme and were paid out of the funds provided by the Central Government. It is stated  that after  the Scheme  was closed their services were dispensed  with. When  the respondents  filed the  writ petition in  the High  Court, the  High Court  gave  interim direction on  November  18,  1992  and  directed  their  re- engagement  elsewhere.   Against   the   aforesaid   interim direction, this appeal by special leave has been filed.      It is  seen that  when the  project  is  completed  and closed due  to non-availability of funds, the employees have to go  along with  its closure. The High Court was not right in giving  the direction  to regularise  them or to continue them  in  other  places.  No  vested  right  is  created  in temporary  employment.   Directions  cannot   be  given   to regularise their  services in  the absence  of any  existing vacancies nor can directions be given to the State to create posts in a non-existent establishment. The Court would adopt pragmatic approach  in  giving  directions.  The  directions would amount  to  creating  of  posts  and  continuing  them despite  non-availability   of  the  work.  We  are  of  the considered view that the directions issued by the High Court are absolutely  illegal  warranting  our  interference.  The order of the High Court is, therefore, set side.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.