IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 963 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.11095/2009]

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .......APPELLANT(S)  

Versus

S. VETTU PERUMAL .....RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.  Heard the parties.

2. The respondent was provisionally appointed as  

Extra Departmental Messenger in the Telegraph branch ofPost  

Office, Nazareth on 8.1.1996.  When the Telecom Centre was  

opened at Nazareth on 16.8.1996, the respondent was engaged  

as a Coolie Messenger on contract basis and charges were  

paid to him for delivery of telegrams on hourly basis at  

the rates prescribed by the Department.  He was neither an  

employee on full-time basis nor on a salary or daily wages.  

The respondent continued as Coolie Messenger on contract  

basis for nearly a decade.  

3. On 21.3.2006, a notification was issued by  

the BSNL inviting bids for delivery of telegrams on work  

contract basis. The respondent submitted his bid of Rs.10/-  

per delivery of telegram.  The appellant found that the  

charges for delivery of telegram nearby Tuticorin was only  

Rs.3/- per telegram and compared to it the quotation of

respondent  

.....2.

- 2 -

was  very  high.   He  was,  therefore,  invited  for  a  

negotiation.   He  did  not  turn  up.   The  contract  was,  

therefore, awarded to someone else.  Feeling aggrieved, the  

respondent filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court  

for quashing the tender notification dated 21.3.2006 and  

for a direction to the Department to 'reinstate' him with  

all consequential benefits.

4. A  learned  single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  

allowed  the  said  petition  by  order  dated  25.1.2007  

(modified on 7.6.2007) directing the appellants to consider  

the  case  of  the  respondent  by  absorption  in  any  future  

vacancy.  Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed a writ  

appeal which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the  

High Court on 1.12.2008.  The said order is challenged in  

this appeal by special leave.

5. The  learned  single  Judge  has  categorically  

recorded a finding that the respondent was working only on  

contract basis and payment was made on hourly basis.  If  

that is so, the respondent could not be considered as an  

'employee' either on daily-wage or a salary. In fact, the  

respondent participated in the tender process where he was  

required  to  quote  the  minimum  charges  for  delivery  of

telegrams and  

......3.

- 3 -

only when his bid was not accepted, he chose to approach  

the High Court praying for absorption.  Having regard to  

the principles laid down in  Secretary, State of Karnataka  

Vs.  Umadevi,  (2006)  4  SCC  1,  the  question  of  directing  

regularisation or absorption of Coolie Messenger working on  

contract basis paid on hourly basis does not arise.   

6. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside  

the impugned orders of the learned single Judge affirmed by  

the  Division  Bench.   This  will  not  come  in  the  way  of  

respondent  participating  in  future  tender  processes  or  

being considered under any scheme.

  .........................J.        ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi;            .........................J. January 25, 2010.          ( K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN )