On 24th November 2022, the Supreme Court in a Division Bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh observed that merely because it took a longer time to complete the tender process and respondent continued for a long time on contractual basis, the respondent has not acquired any right to get his services regularized. (Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Thane & Ors. Vs. Santosh Tukaram Tiware & Ors.)
Facts of the Case:
The Zila Parishad, Thane issued communication dated 29.03.2010 to the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti requesting for immediate recruitment of ambulance drivers at primary health centres on contractual basis till the tender process for supplying/providing driver on contract basis is completed. It was directed to complete the process of appointing the drivers on contract basis locally and on the maximum honorarium of Rs. 7,600/-. Respondent No. 1 was appointed temporarily and on contract basis as a driver for a period of two months and an agreement was executed between respondent No. 1 and Health Officer, Primary Health Centre agreeing with the terms and conditions of the employment. One of the conditions was that the appointment of candidate is on the contract basis and is exclusively temporary in nature. Another condition was that if at the appointed place appointment of zila parishad driver is done then the appointment of concerned driver will be terminated. It took time and the engagement of respondent No. 1 was extended from time to time but for every two months. He in 2019 gave a representation to the Zila Parishad for permanency on the post of driver and the concerned medical officer issued the experience certificate. Respondent No. 1 was employed on temporary basis for 9 years. So, he filed a writ petition before the HC for regularization and to confer permanency. Subsequently, he was terminated from his services. The HC regularization and permanency on the ground that he has been continued in service for more than nine years as a driver without break and/or with artificial break, giving rise to the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The counsel for the appellants submitted that “HC has seriously erred in directing to regularize services of respondent No. 1. The HC has not properly appreciated the fact that the initial appointment of respondent was on contractual basis and till the tender process for providing services of the driver is completed. The HC has not properly appreciated that fact that respondent No. 1 was neither appointed on regular basis nor was appointed after following due procedure as required and was appointed as stopgap and on contractual basis. Merely y because it took a longer time to complete the tender process and that respondent No. 1 continued for a long time on temporary basis, the respondent has not acquired any right to get his services regularized. The respondent No. 1 applied for the post of driver on temporary contract basis and his application for the said post was considered and the direction was given to appoint him on the post of driver only for temporary contract period. The appointment order itself it is specifically mentioned that he is appointed as a driver on temporary basis and his services shall be put to an end as and when the appointment of the driver is made by the Zila Parishad. Though order dated 15.07.2021 was not specifically challenged before the HC and it was also brought to the notice of the HC by way of counter, without any challenge the HC has set aside order and thereafter, has ordered regularization which is impermissible.”
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the respondents submitted that “when respondent No. 1 was continued in service for more than ten years the Hon’ble High Court has not committed any error in ordering regularization of his services. Before appointing respondent, No. 1 applications were invited by the District Health Officer, Zila Parishad, Thane and thereafter, respondent No. 1 was appointed in the year 2010 and thereafter, his services have been continued from time to time by giving him artificial break which continued up to July, 2021.” Reliance was placed on Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Sheo Narain Nagar and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
Observations and Judgment of the Court:
The hon’ble court observed that “merely because respondent No. 1 continued in service for longer period on contractual basis the High Court ought not to have passed the order of regularization more particularly, when a policy decision was taken to avail the services of the driver by the agency/contractor and that the appointment of respondent No. 1 and other similarly situated drivers was not made after any selection procedure. The appointment of respondent No. 1 was purely on stopgap and on contractual basis. Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed a very serious error in ordering regularization as well as quashing and setting aside order dated 15.07.2021 by which on the contract being awarded to M/s Rakshak Security Services and Systems Pvt. Ltd., the services of respondent No. 1 was put to an end. The decision of this Court in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar and Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand.”
The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court was quashed and set aside, allowing the present appeal.
Case: Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Thane & Ors. Vs. Santosh Tukaram Tiware & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. _ Of 2022 (@ SLP (C) No. 3466 Of 2022)
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh
Date: November 24, 2022.
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments