http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BISHAMBER DUTT

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/10/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      These appeals  by special leave arise from the order of the  Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi.      The admitted position is that the respondent along with others came  to be  appointed on September 3, 1990, November 14, 1991  and September  14, as  Class IV  employees in  the office of  the Controller  of Defence  Accounts on part-time basis. There  is  a  controversy  as  to  whether  they  are appointed on  hourly basis or on regular basis. The admitted position is  that they  were receiving the  consolidated pay of Rs.  500/- per  month which   was  raised to Rs.600/- per month for  working six  hours a  day. It is not necessary to consider the  case whether   it full-time or hourly basis or monthly basis.  Suffice it  to  state  that  they  were  not appointed to  a regular  post after  selection according  to rules; they  were appointed  as part-time  employees de hors the   rules. The  question, therefore, is : whether they are entitled  to  the  temporary  status  or  regularisation  as directed by  the Tribunal?  It is  seen that pursuant to the enquiry whether  temporary status  should be  granted to the part-time employees, directions  were issued by the Ministry of Personnel,  Public Grievances  and Pension dated July 12, 1994 in the Memorandum, Clause 3, that they are not entitled to such  status. Since  they are  not appointed  on  regular basis in accordance with rules the  direction  issued by the Tribunal to  regularise the service is obviously illegal. It is then contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that in  view of  the fact  that they were regularly working for a  long time  they are entitled to regularisation. We do not  appreciate   the  stand   taken  on   behalf   of   the respondents. Unless  they are  appointed  on  regular  basis according to  rules after  consideration of  the  claims  on merits, there  is  no  question  of  regularisation  of  the services.      The appeals are accordingly allowed. The orders of the Tribunal is set aside. No costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2