Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others
Coram: Y.K. SABHARWAL ARUN KUMAR G.P. MATHUR, C.K. THAKKER, P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN
2006 AIR 1806 2006(3 )SCR953 2006(4 )SCC1 2006(4 )SCALE197 2006(4 )JT420
Service Law: Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 16, 21, 23, 226 and 309. Public employment-Daily wage temporary employees-Right of regularization or permanent absorption-Doctrine of legitimate expectation-Applicability of-Temporary Government employees engaged on daily wages Claim for regularization with all the benefits applicable to regular employees on the basis that they worked for more than 10 years-Such employees were engaged for the first time in the years 1985-86 inspite of orders not to make such appointments issued in the year 1984-Administrative Tribunal dismissed their claim for regularization-However High Court held that the said employees were entitled to wages equal to the salary and allowances that were being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in Government service with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed-Correctness of-Held: There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service-Doctrine of legitimate expectation is not applicable in such cases-Employment on daily wages did not amount to forced labour-State action in not regularizing such employees was not unfair within the framework of the rule of law-Hence, a mandamus could not be issued in favour of the employees directing the Government to make them permanent since the employees could not show that they have an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the State has a legal duty to make them permanent-Administrative Law. Doctrines: "Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation"-Explained. The respondents were temporarily engaged on daily wages in the Commercial Taxes Department and claimed that they worked in the department based on such engagement for more than 10 years and hence they were entitled to be made permanent employees of the department entitled to all the benefits of regular employees. They were engaged for the first time in the years 1985-86 inspite of orders not to make such appointments issued in the year 1984. The Administrative Tribunal dismissed their claim for regularization. However, the High Court held that the respondents were entitled to wages equal to the salary and allowances that were being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in Government service with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. Hence the appeal. On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that on the basis of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the respondents should be directed to be regularized; that the rights of the respondents thus appointed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution were violated; that employment on daily wages amounted to forced labour; that a mandamus be issued in favour of such persons; and that the State action in not regularizing the respondents was not fair within the framework of the rule of law.
Click to View Judgement