Regularization of Contract Employees - Latest Court Judgement

What are the judgements about

Regularization of an employee refers to making an employee regular. As soon as the services of the employee are regularized, their appointment becomes substantive or permanent. Therefore, their appointment can only be terminated after they are given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 

What were the issues being decided in the judgements?

1. Will the services that are rendered before the regularization by ad hoc employees contribute to their experience?

2. Can part-time employees seek regularization as a matter of right?

What was held by the court in these judgements?

The Supreme Court reiterated that the services rendered by ad hoc employees prior to their regularization cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority.

The Supreme Court observed that part-time temporary employees in a Government-run institution cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

Judgement

Union Of India vs Ilmo Devi . on 7 October, 2021

Author: M.R. Shah

Bench: M.R. Shah, A.S. Bopanna

                                                                              REPORTABLE





                                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION



                                 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5689-5690 OF 2021





         UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                             …Appellant(s)



                                                  Versus





         ILMO DEVI & ANR.                                                …Respondent(s)





                                               JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 9167 of 2007 and CWP No.6854 of 2008 by which the High Court has modified the judgment and order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.886/CH/2005 and consequently has directed the appellants to revisit the whole issue, complete the exercise to reformulate their regularization/absorption policy and take a decision to sanction the posts in a phased manner, the Union of India and others have preferred the present appeal. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2021.10.07 16:34:47 IST Reason:

 

 The High Court has further directed that till the exercise, as directed above, is undertaken, the appellants shall continue the employees in service with their current status but to those of them who have completed 20 years as part-time daily wagers shall be granted “minimum” basic pay of Group ‘D’ posts w.e.f. 01.04.2015 and/or the date of completion of 20 years contractual service, whichever is later.

2. That the respondents herein are/were working as contingent paid part-time Sweepers (Safai Karamcharies working for less than five hours a day) in a Post Office at Sector-14, Chandigarh. That the respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal being O.A. No.886/CH/2005 seeking directions to frame a regularization/absorption policy for regularization of their service. Alternatively, a direction for grant of temporary status w.e.f. 19.11.1989. The said O.A. was opposed by the department. Written statement was filed stating that the respondents -original applicants are contingent paid Safaiwalas working for less than five hours and, therefore, are not entitled for temporary status. It was further stated that there is no regular sanctioned post of Safaiwala in that particular Post Office in Chandigarh. 2.1 An O.M. dated 11.12.2006 was issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (DoPT), Government of India by which regularization of qualified workers appointed against

 

Download complete judgement by clicking on the button given below >>

What law does the judgement discuss?

Regularization of an employee is based on the service rules of an organization subject to the reservation policy of the State. It has been held by various courts that an ad hoc or part-time employee, if the service rules so provide, and the employee is qualified and eligible, must be regularized.

The right to be regularized of a contractual employee depends upon the terms and conditions as laid down in their respective contracts.

Why do you need a Lawyer?

Regularization of a contract employee is an universal issue as contract, part-time, or ad hoc employees often demand their regularization after a certain period of time. Since there is no general centralized legislation governing it, it can be difficult to determine the effectiveness of the Rules or Regulations that govern the specific organization. Therefore, it is imperative to seek help of a labour lawyer.