LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a daily wage employee is entitled to regularization without a sanctioned post and appointment by a competent authority.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Vibhuti Shankar Pandey vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: February 8, 2023
Date of the Judgment: February 8, 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 98
Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J. and Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Can a daily wage employee claim regularization without a valid initial appointment and a sanctioned post? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case concerning a daily wage employee seeking regularization in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Court examined whether the employee met the necessary legal criteria for regularization, particularly in light of previous rulings on the matter. This judgment clarifies the conditions under which daily wage employees can be considered for regularization, emphasizing the importance of proper appointment procedures and the existence of sanctioned posts. The bench comprised of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, who delivered the judgment.
Case Background
The appellant, Vibhuti Shankar Pandey, was engaged as a Supervisor on a daily wage basis in 1980 under a project of the State Water Resources Department of Madhya Pradesh. He sought regularization on the post of Supervisor/Time Keeper. The minimum qualification for the said post was matriculation with mathematics, which the appellant did not possess. A Government Circular dated 31.12.2010 relaxed these qualifications, and the appellant applied for regularization, citing his long service as a daily wage employee. Earlier, in a writ petition (W.P. 13997/2010), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had directed the State Government to decide the appellant’s claim in accordance with law. However, the appellant’s claim for regularization was rejected on 18.06.2018 by the Office of Chief Engineer, Rani Avanti Bai Lodhi Sagar Project, stating that he was never appointed against any post, his appointment was not made by a competent authority, and no posts were available for regularization. The appellant argued that his juniors had been regularized in 1990 or earlier. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed regularization from the date his juniors were regularized. The State Government appealed this order, which was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1980 | Vibhuti Shankar Pandey engaged as a Supervisor on daily wage basis. |
| 31.12.2010 | Government Circular relaxed minimum qualifications for the post. |
| 02.11.2017 | High Court directed State Government to decide the appellant’s claim. |
| 18.06.2018 | Claim for regularization rejected by the Office of Chief Engineer. |
| 27.06.2019 | Single Judge of High Court directed regularization of the appellant. |
| 13.02.2020 | Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the Single Judge. |
| 08.02.2023 | Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The learned Single Judge of the High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant, directing his regularization from the date his juniors were regularized. This order was challenged by the State Government before a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Single Judge. The Division Bench held that the Single Judge had not followed 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 14], which requires that the initial appointment must be made by a competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily-rated employee is working. The Division Bench found that these conditions were not met in the appellant’s case.
Legal Framework
The primary legal framework considered in this case is the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 14]. This case establishes that for regularization of daily wage employees, the initial appointment must be made by a competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post on which the employee is working. The court emphasized that these conditions are essential for any claim of regularization.
Arguments
The appellant argued that:
- He was engaged as a Supervisor in 1980 and had been working for a long time.
- The minimum qualification requirements were relaxed by a Government Circular dated 31.12.2010.
- His juniors were regularized in 1990 or even before, and he should also be regularized from the date his juniors were regularized.
The State of Madhya Pradesh argued that:
- The appellant was never appointed against any sanctioned post.
- His appointment was not made by a competent authority.
- There were no posts available for regularization at the time.
- The principles laid down in Umadevi (supra) were not followed by the Single Judge.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Long Service | Engaged as Supervisor in 1980 and worked for a long time. | Appellant |
| Relaxation of Qualification | Minimum qualification relaxed by Government Circular on 31.12.2010. | Appellant |
| Regularization of Juniors | Juniors were regularized in 1990 or earlier, and appellant should be regularized from the same date. | Appellant |
| No Sanctioned Post | Appellant was never appointed against any sanctioned post. | State of Madhya Pradesh |
| Appointment by Competent Authority | Appellant’s appointment was not made by a competent authority. | State of Madhya Pradesh |
| No Posts Available | No posts were available for regularization at the time. | State of Madhya Pradesh |
| Non-compliance with Umadevi | Single Judge did not follow the principles laid down in Umadevi (supra). | State of Madhya Pradesh |
Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was based on the premise that since his juniors were regularized, he should also be granted the same benefit, despite not meeting the criteria for regularization. This highlights an attempt to seek parity based on past actions of the state.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue was whether the appellant was entitled to regularization despite not fulfilling the conditions laid down in Umadevi (supra), specifically the requirement of a valid initial appointment by a competent authority and the existence of a sanctioned post.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the appellant was entitled to regularization despite not fulfilling the conditions laid down in Umadevi (supra)? | The Court held that the appellant was not entitled to regularization, as he did not meet the essential conditions of initial appointment by a competent authority and the existence of a sanctioned post, as mandated by Umadevi (supra). |
Authorities
The primary authority relied upon by the court was:
- Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 14] – Supreme Court of India. The Court relied on this case to emphasize that for regularization, the initial appointment must be made by a competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post.
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 14] | Supreme Court of India | The court followed the principles laid down in this case, stating that initial appointment must be done by the competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s long service | The Court acknowledged the long service but stated it cannot override the requirement of valid initial appointment and sanctioned post. |
| Relaxation of qualification | The Court noted the relaxation of qualification but stated it did not validate the initial appointment or create a sanctioned post. |
| Regularization of juniors | The Court rejected the argument, stating that regularization of juniors does not entitle the appellant to regularization if he does not meet the legal criteria. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 14] | The Court followed this authority, stating that the initial appointment must be done by the competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post for regularization. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the legal principles established in Umadevi (supra), which mandates that for regularization, the initial appointment must be by a competent authority and against a sanctioned post. The Court emphasized that these conditions were not met in the appellant’s case, and therefore, regularization could not be granted. The Court also highlighted that the long service of the appellant and the regularization of his juniors could not override the legal requirements for regularization.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Compliance with Umadevi (supra) | 40% |
| Lack of initial appointment by competent authority | 30% |
| Absence of sanctioned post | 20% |
| Long service and regularization of juniors not overriding legal requirements | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court considered the arguments of the appellant but found that they did not meet the legal requirements for regularization. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles laid down in Umadevi (supra). The Court stated that the learned Single Judge had not followed the principle of law as given by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 14]. The Court noted that the initial appointment must be done by the competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily rated employee must be working. These two conditions were clearly missing in the case of the present appellant. The Court held that “In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Uma Devi (supra), the appellant had no case for regularization.” The Court also stated that “There is no scope, hence, for our interference with the order of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.” The Court further stated that the Division Bench of the High Court “rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 27.06.2019.” There were no dissenting opinions.
Key Takeaways
- Daily wage employees cannot claim regularization without a valid initial appointment by a competent authority.
- Regularization requires the existence of a sanctioned post against which the employee is working.
- Long service or regularization of juniors does not override the legal requirements for regularization.
- The principles laid down in Umadevi (supra) must be strictly followed in matters of regularization.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.
Development of Law
The judgment reinforces the principles laid down in Umadevi (supra), emphasizing that regularization is not a right and can only be granted if the conditions of valid initial appointment by a competent authority and existence of a sanctioned post are met. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Division Bench. The Court reaffirmed that daily wage employees are not entitled to regularization unless they meet the essential criteria of initial appointment by a competent authority and the existence of a sanctioned post, as established in Umadevi (supra). This judgment serves as a reminder of the strict legal requirements for regularization of daily wage employees.
Category: Service Law; Regularization; Daily Wage Employees; Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 14]
FAQ
Q: What is regularization in the context of employment?
A: Regularization is the process by which a temporary or daily wage employee is made a permanent employee of an organization, with all the benefits and rights of a permanent employee.
Q: What are the key requirements for regularization as per this judgment?
A: According to the Supreme Court, the key requirements for regularization are that the initial appointment must be made by a competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post on which the employee is working.
Q: Can long service as a daily wage employee guarantee regularization?
A: No, long service alone does not guarantee regularization. The employee must also meet the criteria of valid initial appointment and a sanctioned post.
Q: What if junior employees have been regularized?
A: Regularization of junior employees does not automatically entitle a senior employee to regularization if they do not meet the legal criteria for regularization.
Q: What is the significance of the Umadevi case in this context?
A: The Umadevi (supra) case is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court that sets out the legal principles for regularization of daily wage employees. It mandates that the initial appointment must be by a competent authority and against a sanctioned post.