Regularisation Can't Be Claimed If Appointment Was Not By A Competent Authority & There's No Sanctioned Post : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has reiterated that to seek regularisation, a daily rated employee must have been initially appointed by a competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post on which he must be working.The bench comprising Justices Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing a Civil Appeal arising out of a Special Leave Petition filed against the order of the division bench of the...
The Supreme Court has reiterated that to seek regularisation, a daily rated employee must have been initially appointed by a competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post on which he must be working.
The bench comprising Justices Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing a Civil Appeal arising out of a Special Leave Petition filed against the order of the division bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
The division bench of the High Court, in the impugned order, had held that the Appellant’s employment could not be regularised because his initial employment did not satisfy the principle of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1.
The division bench was hearing a Letter patent Appeal appeal against the order of the single judge who had allowed the writ petition while directing for regularization of the appellant from the date on which his juniors were regularized.
It must be noted that in the Uma Devi case, the top court had laid down a set of two conditions for regularisation of daily wage employees: Firstly, initial appointment must be done by the competent authority and Secondly, there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily rated employee must be working.
Regarding the present case, the Supreme Court noted that that the appellant was never appointed against any post. Moreover, his appointment was never made by the competent authority and there were no posts available at the time for regularization.
The Court dismissed the SLP, vide a short order, holding that, “In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Uma Devi, the appellant had no case for regularization. There is no scope, hence, for our interference with the order of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.”
Case Title: VIBHUTI SHANKAR PANDEY VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 10519 OF 2020)
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 91
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ajay Choudhary, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR
Service Law - Regularisation -Two conditions for regularisation of daily wage employees- Firstly, initial appointment must be done by the competent authority and Secondly, there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily rated employee must be working- No claim for regularization if these conditions are not met- Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1.