STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KARSHANBHAI K RABARI
LAWS(SC)-2006-7-93
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GUJARAT)
Decided on July 18,2006

STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
VERSUS
KARSHANBHAI K.RABARI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

UNION OF INDIA VS. MANU DEV ARYA [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SHYAM LAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-3-62] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL GANI WANI VS. STATE OF J AND K [LAWS(J&K)-2006-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. LALIT KUMAR VERMA [LAWS(SC)-2006-11-139] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. OM PRAKASH DUBEY [LAWS(SC)-2006-12-62] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAPAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-1-141] [REFERRED TO]
ANURADHA TIWARI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-195] [REFERRED TO]
VED PARKASH AND ORS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS [LAWS(P&H)-2010-5-391] [REFERRED]
PUNJAB STATE TUBEWELL CORPORATION WORKERS UNION VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2007-12-186] [REFERRED]
PETROLEUM EMPLOYEES UNION VS. MANAGEMENT OF OIL &AMP [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-337] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The State of Gujarat and Superintending Engineer, Capital Project Circle, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court . By the impugned judgment the Division Bench set aside the judgment of a learned Single judge who had dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondents. Learned Single Judge held that the respondents were daily workers who were temporarily appointed for transitory work on a work charge basis and could not be treated at par with regular employees who were appointed on the basis of Recruitment Rules.
(3.)The Division Bench by the impugned judgment held that the respondents were entitled to all the benefits available to permanent employees of the State Government under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and no order diluting/reversing the same can/could be passed by any other Authority/Functionaries of the State Government. Accordingly the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the respondents was allowed and the Communication/Order dated 12.8.1991 by the State Government was quashed. It was held that benefits apart from those clearly mentioned in the resolution dated 17.10.1988 like leave travel concession, leave increment, various advances, allotment of Government quarter were admissible to daily wagers covered under the said resolution. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view expressed by the Division Bench is clearly contrary to what has been stated by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Ors. 2006 (4) SCC 1 (relied on). It was further submitted that the Division Bench erroneously held that other benefits apart from those expressly mentioned in the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 were admissible as the expression "etc"(etcetera) has been mentioned. It was submitted that the view expressed in this Court is clearly contrary to what has been stated in Union of India and Another v. Manu Dev Arya 2004 (5) SCC 232 (relied on).
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the High Court has adopted the view necessary to be taken in the case of poor employees who have been rendering services for a very long period.

We find that the case of the parties has to be considered in the light of what has been stated by this Court in Uma Devi's case (supra). It has been inter alia observed by the Constitution Bench as follows :

"Even at the threshold, it is necessary to keep in mind the distinction between regularization and conferment of permanence in service jurisprudence. In State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa 1967 AIR(SC) 1071 this Court stated that it was a mis-conception to consider that regularization meant permanence. In R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah and Anr. 1972 (1) SCC 409, this Court dealt with an argument that regularization would mean conferring the quality of permanence on the appointment. This Court stated:-

"Counsel on behalf of the respondent contended that regularization would mean conferring the quality of permanence on the appointment, whereas counsel on behalf of the State contended that regularization did not mean permanence but that it was a case of regularization of the rules under Article 309. Both the contentions are fallacious. If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, illegality cannot be regularized. Ratification or regularization is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority, but there has been some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularization cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment. To accede to such a proposition would be to introduce a new head of appointment in defiance of rules or it may have the effect of setting at naught the rules."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.