Kerala High Court Upholds Denial Of Temporary Status And Regularisation For Contingent Employees
Recently, a Division Bench of Kerala High Court, comprising of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, considered a petition against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The judgement pertained to status and regularisation of employment. Background Facts The petitioner, Kumar S, filed the Original Application (“O.A”) before the...
Recently, a Division Bench of Kerala High Court, comprising of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, considered a petition against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The judgement pertained to status and regularisation of employment.
Background Facts
The petitioner, Kumar S, filed the Original Application (“O.A”) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking a direction to the respondents, Union of India, to grant temporary status and regularise his employment under the Narcotic Control Bureau.
The Tribunal considered the petitioner's claim in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, and held that no direction could be given to the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner. The Tribunal dismissed the application with the following observations:
“12. However, what cannot be completely ignored is that the applicants were engaged even if it was intermittently…this too, should not be treated as a direction to the respondents but a suggestion in case the department is inclined to help these applicants, who have had a fairly long engagement under the department.”
Aggrieved by this, Kumar S filed a petition contending that he has been working as a contingent employee at the Thiruvananthapuram Regional Intelligence Unit of the Narcotic Control Bureau for the last 15 years and since his services were beneficially utilised by the Department, he is entitled to be regularised by giving status of a temporary employee.
Arguments Advanced
The petitioner submitted that it can be seen that he was working as a contingent employee for years together and his service was beneficially utilised, therefore, he has every right to get his employment regularised.
The respondents argued that the petitioner cannot claim regularisation of his service under Umadevi case, as the petitioner was a contingent employee employed on need basis. Further submitting that it was not a continuous employment or against any sanctioned post. Service of such a person cannot be regularised and therefore the plea of the petitioner cannot be entertained.
Findings of the Court
The Bench noted that even according to the petitioner, he was engaged by the Department for the last 15 years on a daily wage basis, and not engaged continuously but for specified days in each month. The claim of the petitioner can be considered only in the light of such nature of his employment.
Further pointing that, in Umadevi, the Apex Court directed the Central and State Governments and the instrumentalities under it to regularise temporary employees, who have put in a minimum of 10-year service as a one-time measure and persons employed against sanctioned posts, but on a temporary basis continuously.
Lastly, the Bench reiterated that there's no reason to find fault with the view taken by the Tribunal and dismissed the original petition.
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): P. Sanjay, A. Parvathi Menon, Biju Meenattoor, Indira.K.P., Paul Varghese (Pallath), Kiran Narayanan, Rahul Raj P., Muhammed Bilal. V. A, Basila Beegam, Devika S. Prasad
For Respondent(s): Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Dept. Of Internal Security Narcotics Control of Bureau
Case Title: Kumar S v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 650