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

PETITIONER: STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THROUGH THE SECRETARY (RURALDEVEL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ASHWANI KUMAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/01/1996

BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  960            1996 SCC  (1) 683  JT 1996 (1)     1        1996 SCALE  (1)57

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Heard Counsel on both sides.      The facts  are that the respondent was 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 dated 6th  January, 1993  and directed them to be re-engaged elsewhere.  Pursuant  to  the  interim  direction  the  writ petition came  to be disposed of on March 9, 1993. Thus this appeal by special leave.      It is  seen that  when the  project  is  completed  and closed due  to non-availability  of funds, consequently, the employees have to go along with the closed project. 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  directions be  given to  create posts  by the State to a non-existent establishment. The Court would adopt pragmatic approach in giving directions.The directions would amount to  creating of posts and continuing them in spite of non-availability of the work. We are of considered view that the directions  issued by  the  High  Court  are  absolutely illegal warranting  our interference.  The order of the High Court is set side.      The appeal is allowed. No Costs.