Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Stating that the creation and/or sanction of the posts is the sole prerogative of the Government, the bench of MR Shah* and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that High Court cannot, in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, issue a Mandamus to direct the Department to sanction and create the posts.

The Court was deciding a case wherein the respondents-original applicants were working as contingent paid part-time sweepers (Safai Karamcharies working for less than five hours a day) in a Post Office at Chandigarh. There is no documentary evidence on record to establish and prove that the respondents were working continuously.

It is important to note that there are no sanctioned posts of Safaiwalas in the Post Office in which the respondents were working.

A regularization policy was framed considering the decision of this Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. It provided that the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure the services of such irregularly appointed, qualified persons, in terms of the statutory requirement of the Rules for the posts, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals.

By the impugned judgment and order, the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed to reformulate the regularization policy and to take a decision to sanction the post in a phased manner.

The Supreme Court, however, noted that since the Union of India/Department has already come up with a regularization policy in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court, which does not apply to the part-time workers who do not work on the sanctioned post, the respondents were not entitled for the benefit of regularization.

The Court explained,

“As per the settled preposition of law, the regularization can be only as per the regularization policy declared by the State/Government and nobody can claim the regularization as a matter of right dehors the regularization policy. Therefore, in absence of any sanctioned post and considering the fact that the respondents were serving as a contingent paid part-time Safai Karamcharies, even otherwise, they were not entitled for the benefit of regularization under the regularization policy dated 30.06.2014.”

The Court took note of the decision in State of Maharashtra v. R.S. Bhonde, (2005) 6 SCC 751 wherein it was held that the status of permanency cannot be granted when there is no post and that mere continuance every year of seasonal work during the period when work was available does not constitute a permanent status unless there exists a post and regularization is done.

Holding that part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any sanctioned post and there cannot be any permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees as held, the Court said that

“Part-time temporary employees in a Government run institution cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work.”

Concluding that the regularization policy to regularize the services of the employees working on temporary status and/or casual labourers is a policy decision and in judicial review the Court cannot issue Mandamus and/or issue mandatory directions to do so, the Court held,

“The High Court cannot, in exercise of the power under Article 226, issue a Mandamus to direct the Department to sanction and create the posts. The High Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, also cannot direct the Government and/or the Department to formulate a particular regularization policy. Framing of any scheme is no function of the Court and is the sole prerogative of the Government. Even the creation and/or sanction of the posts is also the sole prerogative of the Government and the High Court, in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot issue Mandamus and/or direct to create and sanction the posts.”

[Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 899, decided on 07.10.2021]


For appellants: ASG Madhvi Divan

For respondents: Advocate Rahul Gupta

*Judgment by: Justice MR Shah

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the case where the question as to whether the services rendered by some Judicial Officers as Fast Track court Judges is liable to be counted for their pensionary and other benefits, the bench of J. Chelameswar and SK Kaul, JJ answered the question in affirmative and said:

“The appellants were not appointed to the Fast Track courts just at the whim and fancy of any person but were the next in line on the merit list of a judicial recruitment process. They were either part of the select list, who could not find a place given the cadre strength, or those next in line in the select list. Had there been adequate cadre strength, the recruitment process would have resulted in their appointment.”

Noticing that the judges have rendered services over a period of nine years and have performed their role as Judges to the satisfaction, otherwise there would have been no occasion for their appointment to the regular cadre strength, the bench said:

“it is a matter of great regret that these appellants who have performed the functions of a Judge to the satisfaction of the competent authorities should be deprived of their pension and retiral benefits for this period of service.”

The Court took note of the fact that the Fast Track Court Scheme was brought in to deal with the exigency and the appellants were appointed to the Fast Track courts and continued to work for almost a decade. It was also noted that the appellants were part of the initial select list/merit list for recruitment to the regular cadre strength but were not high enough to be recruited in the existing strength. Even at the stage of absorption in the regular cadre strength, they had to go through a defined process in pursuance of the judgment of this court and have continued to work thereafter

It was, hence, held:

“the methodology of non-creation of adequate regular cadre posts and the consequent establishment of Fast Track courts manned by the appellants cannot be used as a ruse to deny the dues of the appellants.”

[Mahesh Chandra Verma v. State of Jharkhand, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 520, decided on 11.05.2018]