Supreme Court Upholds Regular Employee’s Return Over Contractual Claim: State of Rajasthan vs. Shiv Charan Meena (2021)

Date of the Judgment: September 17, 2021. Citation: (2021) INSC 640. Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Bela M. Trivedi, J. Can a contractual employee claim preference over a regular employee returning to their post? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving the State of Rajasthan. The core issue revolved around the disengagement of a contractual driver after a regular employee returned from deputation. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Bela M. Trivedi, delivered a unanimous judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from the Agriculture Department of the State Government of Rajasthan. One Lalu Ram Meena, a regular driver, was sent on deputation. In his absence, the services of Shiv Charan Meena (the respondent) were engaged on a contractual basis through the Jaipur Ex-Servicemen Welfare Cooperative Society Ltd. sometime in 2009. The Society would raise a monthly bill, and the government would release the payment to the Society.

Upon Lalu Ram Meena’s repatriation to the department, the services of Shiv Charan Meena were terminated. He was directed to hand over the vehicle to Lalu Ram Meena via an office order dated 05.05.2015. This led Shiv Charan Meena to file a writ petition.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Shiv Charan Meena filed S.B. Civil Writ No.7637 of 2015, seeking regularization of his services, claiming that another contractual employee was being appointed in his place. The Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur allowed the writ petition on 09.05.2017, with costs of Rs. 25,000. The State Government appealed to the Division Bench, which dismissed the appeal on 16.11.2017. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment does not explicitly cite specific sections of any statute, but it implicitly deals with the principles of service law, particularly concerning the rights of regular employees versus contractual employees. The core principle is that a regular employee has a superior claim to a post compared to a contractual employee.

Arguments

The State of Rajasthan argued that the disengagement of the respondent was not due to the appointment of another contractual employee but because the regular employee, Lalu Ram Meena, had returned from deputation. The State contended that the High Court erred in accepting the respondent’s submissions.

The respondent, Shiv Charan Meena, argued that his services were being substituted by another contractual employee and that he should be regularized. He contended that he had been working for a long time and should not be replaced by another contractual employee.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core issue was whether the High Court was correct in ordering the regularization of the contractual employee when a regular employee had returned to his post.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any prior judgments or legal provisions in this case. The decision was based on the established principles of service law, which prioritize regular employees over contractual employees.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and dismissed the writ petition filed by Shiv Charan Meena. The Court emphasized that the disengagement was a result of the regular employee returning to his post, not due to the appointment of another contractual employee. The Court also directed the State to pay an additional sum of Rs. 25,000 to Shiv Charan Meena, in addition to the costs awarded by the High Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a regular employee’s right to their post is superior to that of a contractual employee. The Court emphasized that the disengagement of the contractual employee was a direct consequence of the regular employee’s return and not due to any malafide actions or the appointment of another contractual employee. The Court’s reasoning was grounded in the established norms of service law, which prioritize regular appointments.

The Supreme Court highlighted that “it was not a case of another contractual or ad hoc employee being appointed in place of the respondent but rather it was a case of regular appointee getting repatriated to the parent department.” The Court further stated, “In the circumstances, the High Court was in error in accepting the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent and allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent.” The Court concluded by stating, “We, therefore, allow this appeal, set-aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and dismiss S.B. Civil Writ No.7637 of 2015.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Regular employees have a superior claim to their posts compared to contractual employees.
• ✓ The disengagement of a contractual employee due to the return of a regular employee is valid.
• ✓ Courts should not order regularization of contractual employees when a regular employee is available for the post.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State of Rajasthan to pay an additional sum of Rs. 25,000 to Shiv Charan Meena within four weeks, in addition to the costs awarded by the High Court.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the established principle that regular employees have a superior claim to their posts compared to contractual employees. It clarifies that the return of a regular employee is a valid reason for disengaging a contractual employee.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Rajasthan vs. Shiv Charan Meena reaffirms the priority of regular employees over contractual employees in government service. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, emphasizing that the disengagement of the contractual employee was a direct consequence of the regular employee’s return. This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to established service rules and priorities.