Supreme Court of India
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THROUGH THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURE TO THE GOVT. OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA versus NODHA RAM AND ORS. on 3 January 1996
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
1
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
B
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THROUGH THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURE TO THE GOVT. OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ·
v.
NODHA RAM AND ORS.
JANUARY 3, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950:
C
C Articles 226, I 36--Daily wagers on muster roll--Paid from funds pro-vided by Central Government--Project completed and closed due to non-avail-ability offunds-&rvices dispensed with-Writ Petition-High Court order-ing re-engagement of the employees-On appeal held: no vested right is cre-ated on temporary employment-Non-availability of vacancies--Courts to D adopt pragmatic approach-Regularisation/Creation of posts cannot be directed--Service Law-Regularisation.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1539of 1996.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.92 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in C.W.P. No. 860 of 1992.
Naresh K. Sharma for the Appellant.
Uma Datta for the Respondents.
F
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Leave granted.
Heard Counsel on both sides.
The facts are that the respondents were engaged on daily wages on mus-G ter roll basis in Central Scheme and were paid out of the funds provided by the Central Government. It is stated that after the Scheme was closed their serv-ices were dispensed with. When the respondents filed the writ petition in the High Court, the High Court gave interim directi.on on November 18, 1992 and directed their re-engagement elsewhere. Against the aforesaid interim direc-H tion, this appeal by special leave has heen filed.
G
SS
STATE OF H.P. v. NODHA RAM
It is seen that when the project is completed and closed due to non-A availability of funds, the employees have to go along with its closure. The High Court was not right in giving the direction to regularise them or to con-tinue them in other places. No vested right is created in temporary employ-ment. Directions cann_ot be given to regularise their services in the absence of any existing vacancies nor can directions be given to the State to create posts B in a non-exist~nt establislunent. The Court would adopt pragn1atic approach in giving directions. !he directions would amount to creating of posts and continuing them despite non-availability of the work. We are of the consid-ered view that the directions issued by the High Court are absolutely illegal warranting our interference. The order of the High Court is, therefore, set side.
c
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.