Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Regularization for Temporary Employees: Raj Balam Prasad vs. State of Bihar (27 November 2017)

Date of the Judgment: 27 November 2017
Citation: Raj Balam Prasad & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. Civil Appeal No.19846 of 2017
Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Can temporary government employees claim regularization after their fixed-term appointments expire? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving “Muharrirs” appointed temporarily in Bihar. The Court’s decision clarifies that temporary appointments, even with extensions, do not automatically grant a right to permanent employment. The bench comprised Justices R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, with the judgment authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

In 1987-88, eight individuals, including the four appellants, were temporarily appointed as “Muharrirs” in the Office of the Collector, Saran Chpara, Bihar. These appointments were for a fixed period of three months, made under Rule 57-A of the Bihar Certificate Manual, to handle pending certificate cases. Although their services were extended, this was only until 1991.

The “Muharrirs” sought regularization, filing a writ petition in the High Court at Patna in 1991. The High Court directed the competent authority to consider their representation. Following this, the “Muharrirs” filed an intra-court appeal which was dismissed, with the High Court expressing concern over how some of the “Muharrirs” continued to work even after their term ended and how some were regularized in 2006. The Court directed the State Vigilance Department to investigate. Subsequently, some of the “Muharrirs” were regularized on 10.10.2006. Those who were not regularized filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, which was dismissed, with liberty to file representations. The Competent Authority rejected their representations on 15.01.2012 stating that their services had ended in 1991.

The appellants then filed another writ petition seeking regularization, relying on a circular dated 16.04.2008. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition, ordering the state to regularize the appellants. However, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The “Muharrirs” first filed a writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 5142 of 1991) in the High Court at Patna, seeking regularization. The Single Judge directed the Competent Authority to consider their representation. The Division Bench dismissed the subsequent intra-court appeal (L.P.A. No.434 of 2001), expressing concern over the regularization of some “Muharrirs” and directed a vigilance inquiry. After their representations were rejected, the “Muharrirs” filed another writ petition (C.W.J.C. No.4247 of 2012). The Single Judge allowed this petition, ordering regularization. However, the Division Bench reversed this decision in the intra-court appeal, leading to the final appeal in the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The appointments of the “Muharrirs” were made under Rule 57-A of the Bihar Certificate Manual, which provides for temporary appointments to handle pending certificate cases under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act. The relevant portion of Rule 57-A of the Bihar Certificate Manual as mentioned in the source is:

“the instructions issued under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the order of the Single Judge, which directed their regularization, should be restored. They contended that the Single Judge’s order was based on proper reasoning and should not have been set aside by the Division Bench.

• The appellants relied on a Circular dated 16.04.2008, which stated that temporary employees engaged in a particular project could be regularized if their services were found useful. They argued that this circular entitled them to regularization.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents (State of Bihar) argued that the Division Bench was correct in setting aside the Single Judge’s order. They contended that the services of the “Muharrirs” had ended in 1991, and therefore, they could not claim regularization.

• The respondents pointed out that the appointments were temporary, made under Rule 57-A of the Bihar Certificate Manual, and the extensions granted did not change their temporary status.

• The respondents argued that the circular dated 16.04.2008 did not apply to the appellants as their services had ended long before the issuance of the circular.

• The respondents also highlighted that the earlier order of the Division Bench, which had ordered a vigilance inquiry, was not brought to the notice of the Single Judge.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’ writ petition by allowing the intra court appeal filed by the respondents herein and reversing the order of the Single Judge which had allowed the appellants’ writ petition by issuing a mandamus directing the State(respondents) to regularize the appellants on the post of “Muharrir”.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions and authorities:

• Rule 57-A of the Bihar Certificate Manual: This rule allows for temporary appointments to handle pending certificate cases.
• The Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act: The Act under which the instructions for temporary appointments were issued.
• Circular dated 16.04.2008: This circular stated that temporary employees engaged in a particular project could be regularized if their services were found useful.

Authorities Considered Table

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellants’ appointments were temporary and had expired in 1991. The Court emphasized that temporary appointments do not automatically confer a right to regularization, even with extensions. The Court also noted that the circular dated 16.04.2008 did not apply to the appellants. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the previous Division Bench order directing a vigilance inquiry was not brought to the notice of the Single Judge.

The Court emphasized that the grant of extensions did not change the temporary nature of the appointments. The Court also noted that there was no rule that recognized a right to regularization for such temporary employees.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the Division Bench’s order:

“The permanent status could be conferred to those who were in service and not to those whose service had come to an end many years ago. Such an order could not be made basis of permanent status through the writ court.”

The Supreme Court also observed:

“One cannot dispute that the State has the power to appoint persons for a temporary period under the Act and Rules framed thereunder and once such power was exercised by the State, the status of such appointee continued to be that of temporary employee notwithstanding grant of some extensions to them for some more period.”

The Court further stated:

“In other words, the grant of extension to work for some more period to the writ petitioners could never result in conferring on them the status of a permanent employee or/and nor could enable them to seek regularization in the services unless some Rule had recognized any such right in their favour.”

Key Takeaways

• Temporary government appointments, even with extensions, do not automatically confer a right to regularization.
• Employees whose fixed-term appointments have expired cannot claim regularization based on subsequent circulars or policies.
• Courts will not grant regularization to employees whose services have ended long ago.
• The State has the power to make temporary appointments, and the status of such appointees remains temporary unless a rule provides otherwise.

Directions

No specific directions were issued by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that temporary appointments, even with extensions, do not automatically confer a right to regularization. This reinforces the existing legal position that temporary employees cannot claim permanent status unless a specific rule or policy provides for it.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, denying regularization to the temporary “Muharrir” employees. The Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that temporary appointments do not automatically lead to permanent employment, even with extensions. This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding the rights of temporary employees and their claims for regularization.