AN ARTICLE ON REGULARISATION OF SERVICES OF CASUAL WORKERS

IN LINKED IN SHRI ROHITMANI TIWARI,THE THEN DEPUTY DIRECTOR, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT SOLICITED MY COMMENTS AND VIEWS ON HIS ARTICLE ON REGULARIZATION .I ADVISED HIM TO REFER TO SECRETARY,GOVT OF KARNATAKA VRS UMA DEVI.THEREAFTER, I THOUGHT TO RE-PUBLISH THE UNDERMENTIONED ARTICLE SO THAT THE ESTEEMED READERS CAN KNOW RULINGS OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT IN ITS VARIOUS JUDGMENTS. HOPE THE ESTEEMED READERS WILL LIKE THIS ARTICLE WHICH IS AN ANTHOLOGY ON THE SUBJECT. I ALSO HOPE THAT THE PERSONNEL, ADMINISTRATION AND GR PROFESSIONALS WILL GET SOME ASSIATNCE FROM THIS WRITE-UP WHICH IS A COMPILATION OF VARIOUS JUDGMENTS,

SOME REFLECTIONS IN INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE JURISPRUDENCE : THE RIGHTS OF TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES IN?CLAIMING REGULARISATION OF SERVICES AND OTHER RELIEFS : A DOCUMENTARY

AJAYA?KUMAR SAMANTARAY, EX-CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)e-mail : [email protected]?

PRELUDE?: At the dawn of my career, I joined at Kolar Gold Fields as an Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) in June?1993?and worked till May 1997?and from 2001 to 2005 I again worked as Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),Bangalore. From ?December 2014 to ?May 2015 ?I worked as RLC (C),Bilaspur and from?3 June 2015 to 31 March 2020 I worked as Dy CLC (C),Dhanbad……and so on. During the course of working in CLC (C)'s organsation, I have handled several disputes pertaining to regularisation of services of contract as well as casual workers. I have also guided my officers in handling such disputes. Mostly, disputes pertaining to regularisation of services of casual and contract workers are not recommended by us for adjudication as I feel that as far as contract workers are concerned, there is no employer-employee relationship between the Principal Employer and Contract workers; as far as casual workers are concerned, a view is taken to the effect that "casual workers are engaged when there is temporary increase in work of permanent nature and casual workers do not hold any sanctioned posts.??

??????The esteemed readers are aware that Governments, both Central and the States, engage employees on?temporary basis and after some time regularise?their services, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held this practice?to be bad and contrary to the law of the land. According to the Hon'ble Apex Court, temporary employees cannot claim any right of regularisation of their services. In this context it would be quite apposite to survey the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court so that the esteemed readers can be impressed upon the subject more vividly. In this write-up, am attempt has been made to survey around 100 decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court pertaining to claim for regularisation and other benefits.

THE CASE-LAWS?:

1.State of Karnataka vrs. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC 1806 = (2006) 6 Comp LJ 1(SC) = 2006 (3) JCR 36 (SC) = JT 2006 (4) SC 420 = 2006 (4) Kar L J 29 = 2006-II-LLJ-722 = (2006) 2 MLJ 326 = 2006 (4) SCALE 197 = (2006) 4 SCC 1 = 2006 (3) SLJ 1 =?https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1591733/?: In this case, a learned Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that the Union and the State Governments and their instrumentalities cannot make appointment de hors the constitutional scheme of public employment. It has been?held that appointment in the State and its instrumentalities should only be in accordance with the rules and procedure relating to regular recruitment. It would be quite pertinent?to reproduce the pedagogy which is as follows:

2. Public employment in a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic, has to be as set down by the Constitution and the laws made 0thereunder. Our constitutional scheme envisages employment by the Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf. Equality of opportunity is the hallmark, and the Constitution has provided also for affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated as equals. Thus, any public employment has to be in terms of the constitutional scheme.

6. The power of a State as an employer is more limited than that of a private employer inasmuch as it is subjected to constitutional limitations and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. Article 309 of the Constitution gives the Government the power to frame rules for the purpose of laying down the conditions of service and recruitment of persons to be appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or any of the States. That article contemplates the drawing up of a procedure and rules to regulate the recruitment and regulate the service conditions of appointees appointed to public posts. It is well acknowledged that because of this, the entire process of recruitment for services is controlled by detailed procedures which specify the necessary qualifications, the mode of appointment, etc. If rules have been made under Article 309 of the Constitution, then the Government can make appointments only in accordance with the rules. (emphasis supplied)

2.Surinder Prasad Tiwari vrs. U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad ,?2007(1) ALL MR (SC) 461= JT 2006 (8) SC 504 = 2006-III-LLJ- 1026?= 2006 (9) SCALE 101= (2006) 7 SCC 684 : In this case it has been held as follows :

38. In view of the clear and unambiguous constitutional scheme, the courts cannot countenance appointments to public office which have been made against the constitutional scheme. In the backdrop of constitutional philosophy, it would be improper for the courts to give directions for regularisation of services of the person who is working either as daily-wager, ad hoc employee, probationer, temporary or contractual employee, not appointed following the procedure laid down under Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution. In our constitutional scheme, there is no room for back door entry in the matter of public employment. (emphasis supplied)

3.?National Fertilizers Ltd. vrs. Somvir Singh, AIR 2006 SC 2319 = (2006) 6 Comp LJ 310 (SC) = 2006 (110)FLR2 11 = 2006 (4) JCR 25 (SC) = 2006-II-LLJ-1113 = (2006) 3 MLJ 90 (SC) = 2006 (6) SCALE 101 = 2007 (1)SLJ 151 (SC): In this case the Hon'ble?Apex Court has stated as follows :

13. The respondents herein were appointed only on applications made by them. Admittedly, no advertisement was issued in a newspaper nor was the employment exchange notified as regards existence of vacancies. It is now trite law that a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is bound to comply with the constitutional requirements as adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 thereof. When the Recruitment Rules are made, the employer would be bound to comply with the same. Any appointment in violation of such Rules would render them as nullities. It is also well settled that no recruitment should be permitted to be made through back door. (emphasis supplied)

4. Mehar Chand Polytechnic vrs. Anu Lamba, AIR 2006 SC 3074 = 2007 (1) ALL MR (SC) 443 = 2006 (111) FLR 630 = JT 2006 (7) SC 322 = (2007) 1 MLJ 17(SC) = 2006 (7) SCALE 648 = = 2007(2) SLJ 85 (SC) : In this case?the Hon'ble Apex?Court has ruled as follows :

16. Public employment is a facet of right to equality envisaged under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The State although is a model employer, its right to create posts and recruit people therefor emanates from the statutes or statutory rules and/or rules framed under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The recruitment rules are framed with a view to give equal opportunity to all the citizens of India entitled for being considered for recruitment in the vacant posts. (emphasis supplied)

The need for making such appointments de hors the framework of constitutional scheme such as insisting upon sponsorship of the employment exchange or holding of the written exams has been stressed in the following decisions :

(a) Mahboob Deepak vrs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula,?200(116) FLR 379 = JT 2008 (1) SC 150 = 2008 -I-LLJ-855 = 2007(14) SCALE 504 =?2008 AIR SCW 223 = 2007 (8) Supreme 336 = 2008 (1) LH (SC) 413

(b) Municipal Corporation,Hyderabad vrs. P. Mary Manoranjani, AIR 2008 SC 1089 = 2008 (2) ALD 102 (SC) = 2008 (116) FLR 548 = 2008 (1) JCR 182 (SC) = JT 2008 (1) SC 547 = (2008) 2 MLJ 688 (SC) = 2008 (1) SCALE 352 = 2008 (3) SLJ 39 (SC) = 2008 AIR SCW 704 = 2008 LAB IC 789 = 2008(2)LH(SC)1093

(c) Mahadeo Bhau Khilare (Mane) vrs. State of Maharashtra, 2007(6) ALL MR (SC) 476 = 2007 (114) FLR 420 = JT 2007 (6) SC 562 = 2007 (6) SCALE 695 =?2008 (1) SLJ 74 (SC)?

(d) State of Manipur vrs. Y. Token Singh, 2007 (6) ALL MR (SC) 439 = 2007 (114) FLR 912 = JT 2007 (3) SC 606 = (2007) 3 MLJ 934 (SC) = 2007 (3) SCALE 319 = (2007) 5 SCC 65

(e) Post Master General vrs. Tutu Das (Dutta) ,?2007 (4) JCR 101 (SC) = JT 2007 (6) SC 340 = 2007 -III -LLJ- 163 = (2007) 6 MLJ 322 (SC) = 2007(6) SCALE 453 = (2007) 5 SCC 317 = 2008 (3) SLJ 118 (SC)

(f) Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur vrs. Vibha Shukla, AIR 2007 SC 2291 = 2007 (114) FLR 487 = JT 2007 (8) SC 532 = 2007 (8) SCALE 361 = 2007 AIR SCW 3981?

(g) State of Jharkhand vrs. Manshu Kumbhkar, 2008 (2) ALL MR (SC) 776 = JT 2007 (11) SC 109 = (2007) 6 MLJ 1665 (SC) = 2007 (11) SCALE 168 = 2008 (1) SLJ 396 (SC) 11 = 2007 (8) SCC 249 and

(h) State of Orissa vrs. Prasana Kumar Sahoo, AIR 2007 SC 2588 = JT 2007 (6) SC 182 = 2007 (6) SCALE 236 = 2007 AIR SCW 4604

REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 14, EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT?:

?????? The Hon'ble Supreme Court,in no uncertain terms declared that "equality of opportunity in public employment?the basic feature of the Constitution” and??the State has to honour the same while making recruitment to public service. In?Umadevi' s case, at paragraph no.11 (SCC)??the learned Constitution Bench drawing upon the principle of equality in public employment as enshrined under the Constitution has ruled as follows :

11. In addition to the equality clause represented by Article 14 of the Constitution, Article 16 has specifically provided for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Buttressing these fundamental rights, Article 309 provides that subject to the provisions of the Constitution, Acts of the legislature may regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. In view of the interpretation placed on Article 12 of the Constitution by this Court, obviously, these principles also govern the instrumentalities that come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution. With a view to make the procedure for selection fair, the Constitution by Article 315 has also created a Public Service Commission for the Union and the Public Service Commissions for the States. Article 320 deals with the functions of the Public Service Commissions and mandates consultation with the Commission on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts and other related matters. As a part of the affirmative action recognised by Article 16 of the Constitution, Article 335 provides for special consideration in the matter of claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for employment. The States have made Acts, rules or regulations for implementing the above constitutional guarantees and any recruitment to the service in the State or in the Union is governed by such Acts, rules and regulations. The Constitution does not envisage any employment outside this constitutional scheme and without following the requirements set down therein. (emphasis supplied)

The above?view of the Hon'ble Apex Court has been accepted in?Mehar Chand Polytechnic vrs. Anu Lamba?(supra)??and?State of M.P. vrs. Yogesh Chandra Dubey,??2006 (111) FLR 332 = JT 2006 (8) SC 595 = 2006-III-LLJ-1060 = (2006) 4 MLJ 932 (SC) = 2006 (4) MPHT 321 = 2006 (9) SCALE 73 = (2006) 8 SCC 67 = 2006 (3) Shim LC 284 =?2007(2) SLJ 186(SC) .

NO APPOINTMENT CONTRARY TO STATUTORY RULES?:

?Under this head, the following decisions can be referred to :

(i)??????Assistant Salt Commissioner vrs. Central Salt Mazdoor Union, 2008 (224) ELT 14 (SC) = JT 2008 (2) SC 469 = 2008-I-LLJ-1016 = 2008 (2) SCALE 548 = (2008) 11 SCC 278 = 2009 [16] STR 97 = 2008 AIR SCW 1443 = 2008 LAB IC 1368 = 2008 (2) Supreme 276 : The Hon'ble Apex Court was of the?opinion?that the State is not bound by the act of its officers contrary to the statutory rules and any infraction by such officers would not confer a benefit on temporary employees.

(ii)???????Reserve Bank of India?vrs. Gopinath Sharma, AIR 2006 SC 2614 = 2006 (110) FLR 803 = JT 2006 (6) SC 394 = 2006-III-LLJ- 492 =?2006 (7) SCALE 151 = (2006) 6 SCC 221 = 2007 (1) SLJ 192 (SC) : In this case the Hon'ble Supreme?Court set aside the direction of the High Court directing regularisation of the services of a workman who was appointed on daily wages and was not working on regular basis.

(iii)??? ?State of M.P. vrs. Yogesh Chandra Dubey,??2006 (111) FLR 332 : In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside regularisation of daily wagers not appointed in terms of the statutory rules but in exigencies of administration.

LONG CONTINUANCE AS CASUAL WORKER :

??????The esteemed readers may note that?mere long continuance whether under interim orders passed by various courts, tribunals or otherwise does not confer any right on temporary employees to claim regularisation. At paragraph nos.45 and 43 (SCC) of?Umadevi's judgment, it has been held as follows :?

45. The argument that since one has been working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not (sic) one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. (emphasis supplied)

With respect to employees continuing under the interim orders, it was held:

43.?It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the court, which we have described as?litigious employment in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. (emphasis supplied)

???? ??In Chief?Commissioner of Income - Tax vrs. Leena Jain, 2007 (2) ALL MR (SC) 939 = 2007 (113) FLR315 = 2006 (12) SCALE 411 = (2006)11 SCC 350 = 2006 AIR SCW 6066 = 2007-I-LLJ-468, the Apex Court set aside the decision of the High Court wherein the High Court directed?regularisation of the services of a workman by virtue of her having worked for long on contract basis and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh adjudication, keeping in mind the decision in?Umadevi?(3) [supra] .The esteemed readers, for further clarity, may also refer to the following decisions :??

(i)?National Fertilizers Ltd. vrs. Somvir Singh, AIR 2006 SC 2319 = (2006) 6 Comp LJ 310 (SC) = 2006 (110)FLR2 11 = 2006 (4) JCR 25 (SC) = 2006-II-LLJ-1113 = (2006) 3 MLJ 90 (SC) = 2006 (6) SCALE 101 = 2007 (1)SLJ 151 (SC),

(ii) Gurbachan Lal vrs. Regional Engineering College, JT 2007(8) SC 296 = 2007 (4) SCALE 1 = 2007 AIR SCW 2265 and?

(iii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vrs. L.V. Subramanyeswara,JT 2007 (6) SC 594 = 2007-III-LLJ-174 = 2007 (5) Mh L J 522 = 2007 MPLJ 10 (SC) = 2007 (7) SCALE 86 = (2007) 5 SCC 326 = 2008 (1) SLJ 67(SC) = 2007 AIR SCW 3228 = 2007(4) AIR KarR 446 (SC)

THE SCHEME OF REGULARISATION?:

???????Here, the question is "whether a scheme for regularisation can prevail over rules which are statutory?in nature .The answer can be had from paragraph 6 in?Umadevi?'s (3) decision which reads as follows :

6. Normally, statutory rules are framed under the authority of law governing employment. It is recognised that no government order, notification or circular can be substituted for the statutory rules framed under the authority of law. This is because, following any other course could be disastrous inasmuch as it will deprive the security of tenure and the right of equality conferred on civil servants under the constitutional scheme. It may even amount to negating the accepted service jurisprudence. Therefore, when statutory rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution which are exhaustive, the only fair means to adopt is to make appointments based on the rules so framed. (emphasis supplied)

?????? In this contex, the following decisions can also be referred to :

(i)?Jammu & Kashmir?Public Service Commission vrs. Dr. Narinder Mohan,?AIR 1994 SC 1808 = 1994 (68) FLR 363 = JT 1993 (6) SC 593 = 1994-I-LLJ-780 = 1993 (4) SCALE 597 = (1994) 2 SCC 630 = [1993] Supp 3 SCR 900 = 1994 (1) SLJ 218 (SC) 27 : In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down that where the rules relating to recruitment had been made, the executive could not fall back upon the general power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India to regularise the ad hoc appointments.The esteemed readers may also refer to the following decisions :

(a) State of Karnataka vrs. KGSD Canteen Employees Welfare Association,AIR 2006 SC 845 = 2006 (1) CTC 414 = 2006 (109) FLR 18 = JT 2006 (1) SC 84 = 2006 (2) Kar LJ 1 = 2006-I-LLJ-691= RLW 2006 (2) SC 1156 = 2006 (1) SCALE 85 = (2006) 1 SCC 567 = 2006 (2) SLJ 129 (SC)???????????????

(b) A.P. SRTC vrs. P. Chandra Sekhara Rao, LAWS(SC)-2006-7-5 = (2006) 7 SCC 488?and

(c) State of U.P. vrs. Desh Raj, AIR 2006 SC 1712 =?2007 (1) AWC 431 (SC) = 2006 Cri LJ 2108 = JT 2007 (1) SC 306 = 2006 (13) SCALE 382 = 2006 (3) SCALE 194 = (2007) 1 SCC 257 = 2006 (1) LC 644 (SC) = 2007 AIR SCW 222 = 2007-I-LLJ-616

(ii) ?Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board vrs. Ranjodh Singh, 2007-II-LLJ-1052 = 2006 (13) SCALE 426 = (2007) 2 SCC 491 = 2007 AIR SCW 1018 = AIR 2007 SC 1082 : In this case, while quashing the appointments made by means of policy decisions contained in a circular, it was held:

19. In the instant case, the High Court did not issue a writ of mandamus on arriving at a finding that the respondents had a legal right in relation to their claim for regularisation, which it was obligated to do. It proceeded to issue the directions only on the basis of the purported policy decision adopted by the State. It failed to notice that a policy decision cannot be adopted by means of a circular letter and, as noticed hereinbefore, even a policy decision adopted in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India in that behalf would be void. Any departmental letter or executive instruction cannot prevail over statutory rule and constitutional provisions. Any appointment, thus, made without following the procedure would be ultra vires. (emphasis supplied)

In this context, the esteemed readers may please refer to the following decisions too:?

(a) Post Master General vrs Tutu Das , 2007 (4) JCR 101 (SC) = JT 2007 (6) SC 340 = 2007 -III -LLJ- 163 = (2007) 6 MLJ 322 (SC) = 2007(6) SCALE 453 = (2007) 5 SCC 317 = 2008 (3) SLJ 118 (SC)

(b) Punjab State Warehousing Corporation. vrs. Manmohan Singh , 2007 (113) FLR 218 = JT 2007 (4) SC 291 = 2007-II-LLJ-519 = 2007 (3) SCALE 401 = (2007) 9 SCC 337 =?2008 (1) SLJ 292 (SC) = 2007 AIR SCW 6301 and

(c) Commissioner of?Central Excise,Bolpur vrs. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries,?(2008) 220 CTR (SC) 98 = 2008 (134) ECC 1 = 2008 (160) LC 1 (SC) = 2008 (231) ELT 22 (SC) = 2008 (4) KLT 607 (SC) = (2009) 1 MLJ 192 (SC) = 2008 (13) SCALE 353 = 2008 [12] STR 416 .

COMPETENCE OF COURT TO FRAME SCHEME FOR REGULARISATION OR?DIRECT THE GOVERNMENT TO FRAME SCHEME :

??????The Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that?Courts cannot frame or direct framing of schemes for regularisation of temporary employees In KGSD Canteen Employees Welfare Assn., the Apex Court deprecated the tendency on the part of courts to direct framing of schemes for regularisation of temporary employees, the Court said :

44. The question which now arises for consideration is as to whether the High Court was justified in directing regularisation of the services of the respondents. It was evidently not. In a large number of decisions, this Court has categorically held that it is not open to a High Court to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution either to frame a scheme by itself or to direct the State to frame a scheme for regularising the services of ad hoc employees or daily wage employees who had not been appointed in terms of the extant service rules framed either under a statute or under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Such a scheme, even if framed by the State, would not meet the requirements of law as the executive order made under Article 162 of the Constitution cannot prevail over a statute or statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 thereof. (emphasis supplied)

COURT CANNOT ASSUME EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS?:

??????The Hon'ble Apex Court has stated that no directions for regularisations, fixing pay scale, continuation in service, promotion, etc. shall be given by the courts as these are executive functions. It is well settled that it is not for the court to issue direction to the State as to how the selection process should be, it is for the State to consider as to how to streamline the selection procedure, the court can only examine as to whether the procedure for selection as adopted by the Government is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal or vitiated by arbitrariness or mala fides.In this context, it would be quite apposite to refer to the following decisions :

?(i) ?Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vrs. Workmen,?[2007 (112) FLR 474 = JT 2006 (10) SC 216 = 2006 (12) SCALE 1 = (2007) 1 SCC 408 = 2007 (2) SLJ 467 (SC) = 2006 AIR SCW 994 = 2007-I-LLJ-580 = 2007 (2) KCCRSN 94 (SC) : In this case, it has been?held as follows:

37. Creation and abolition of posts and regularisation are purely executive functions vide P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General. Hence, the court cannot create a post where none exists. Also, we cannot issue any direction to absorb the respondents or continue them in service, or pay them salaries of regular employees, as these are purely executive functions. This Court cannot arrogate to itself the powers of the executive or legislature. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution, and the judiciary, too, must know its limits.

(ii)? State of Manipur vrs. KSH Moirangninthou Singh,?2007 (113) FLR199 = 2007 (3) SCALE 501 = (2007)10 SCC 544 = 2008 (1) SLJ 1(SC) = 2007 AIR SCW 4456 : The Hon'ble Apex Court held that post the decision in?Umadevi?(3), no direction for regularisation in services could be issued and it was held as follows :

7. We are of the opinion that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in?State of Karnataka vrs. Umadevi?(3) [supra]?this Court cannot direct regularisation in service. Since the court has no power to direct regularisation, it also follows that it has no power to direct grant of benefits payable to the regular employees.41(emphasis supplied)

(iii)?Union of India vrs. Pushpa Rani, (2008) 7 MLJ 64 (SC) = 2008 (10) SCALE 567 = (2008) 9 SCC 243 = 2009 (1) SLJ 1 (SC) = 2008 AIR SCW 6564 = 2008 (4) LH (SC) 2993 : In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled as follows :

7. The court has no role in determining the methodology of recruitment or laying down the criteria of selection. It is also not open to the court to make comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should structure or restructure the cadres for the purpose of improving efficiency of administration. (emphasis supplied)

The esteemed readers may also refer to the ?decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govt. of A.P. vrs . K. Brahmanandam, AIR 2008 SC 3170 = 2008 (117) FLR 1086 = 2008 (7) SCALE 685 = (2008) 5 SCC 241 = 2009 (2) SLJ 323 (SC) = 2008 (1) LC 667(SC) = 2008 AIR SCW 5352 .

(iv)???Bihar Public Service Commission vrs. Kamini,?JT 2007 (5) SC 445 = 2007 AIR SCW 2554 = (2007) 3 MLJ 885(SC) = 2007 (5) SCALE 735 = (2007) 5 SCC 519 : In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to interfere with the opinion of the expert committee as regards eligibility and qualification required of the candidates.

(v) ?Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2007 (112) FLR 474 = JT 2006 (10) SC 216 = 2006 (12) SCALE 1 = (2007) 1 SCC 408 = 2007 (2) SLJ 467(SC) = 2006 AIR SCW 5994 = 2007-I-LLJ-580 = 2007 (2) KCCRSN 94(SC) : In this case, it has been held that since a temporary employee has no age of superannuation therefore no direction can be passed to continue such employee till superannuation.

(vi)?Malik Mazhar Sultan vrs. U.P. Public Service Commission,?2006 (2) AWC 1993 (SC) = 2006 (109) FLR 777 = JT 2006 (4) SC 531 = 2006 (4) SCALE 1 = (2006) 9 SCC 507 = 2006 (3) SLJ 39 (SC) = 2006 (1) LC 468 (SC)?: In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that relaxation in age could not have been granted on the basis of advertisement and same could be given only if it was permissible under the recruitment rules.

(vii)?Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams vrs. K. Jotheeswara Pillai,AIR 2007 SC 1771 = 2007 (114) FLR 12 = JT 2007 (6) SC 447 = 2007-III-LLJ-13 = 2007 (6) SCALE 603 = (2007) 9 SCC 461 = 2008 (1) SLJ 22(SC) = 2007-III-LLJ-13 = 2007 AIR SCW 2932 : In this case, termination of services of muster roll employees, who were ineligible by virtue of being over aged, was upheld on the ground that the recruitment rules did not provide for relaxation in age and weightage to their past services.

TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT BY SELECTION?:

??????It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that?mere fact that there was selection even for temporary appointment is inconsequential to claim regularisation. In?Chanchal Goyal (Dr.) vrs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 1713 = 2003 (3) CTC 244 = 2003 (97) FLR7 = JT 2003 (5) SC 144 = RLW 2003 (3) SC 347 = 2003 (2) SCALE 264 = (2003) 3 SCC 485 = [2003] 2 SCR 112 = 2003 (1) SLJ 1 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while insisting on mandatory compliance with the recruitment rules, held that merely because there was selection for temporary appointment, the same by itself would not confer a right on the employees to claim regularisation, thus there is no scope of regularisation unless the appointment was on regular basis.

TERMINATION OF CASUAL WORKERS/EMPLOYEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH TERMS OF APPOINTMENT?:

??????The Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that termination?of service of casual employees in accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment letter is proper.In this context the following decisions can be referred to :

(i)?Municipal Council, Samrala vrs. Raj Kumar,?2006 LLR?583 = (2006) 3 SCC 81 : In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the termination of services of a temporary employee notwithstanding the fact that the appointment was not for a fixed period and was continued repeatedly.

(ii)?Municipal Council, Samrala vrs. Sukhwinder Kaur?,?AIR 2006 SC 2905 = 2006 (110) FLR 1155 =?2006 (4) JCR 167 (SC) = 2006-III-LLJ-502 = 2006 (7) SCALE 614 = (2006) 6 SCC 516 : In this case, it has been observed as follows:

7. The respondent, within a span of about 18 months, was appointed thrice and disengaged thrice. As noticed hereinbefore, she was appointed on a contractual basis. The appointments were temporary ones. She was aware that her services could be terminated without notice. She accepted the terms and conditions of the said offers of appointments without any demur.

9. Although there was no fixed period of contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned and thus, no question of its renewal on its expiry, but there existed a stipulation in the contract that the Executive Officer has the power to dismiss her without issuing any notice. (emphasis supplied)

?(iii)?Vidyavardhaka Sangha vrs. Y.D. Deshpande,2006 (111) FLR 397 = 2006 (9) SCALE 641 = 2007(3) Shim LC 302 = 2007 (2) SLJ 234 (SC), ?

(iv) State of Rajasthan vrs. Sarjeet Singh,?2006 (111) FLR 908 = JT 2006 (9) SC 302 = 2007-I-LLJ-236 = 2006 (10) SCALE 417 = (2006) 8 SCC 508 = 2007 (2) SLJ 59 (SC) :

?????? In the above cases? it has been held that continuance despite the expiry of contract period was held not to be sufficient to confer right to regularisation.

(v)?State of Punjab vrs. Supreet Rajpal,2007 (115) FLR 1152 = 2008 (3) JKJ 73 [SC] = 2008-I-LLJ-597 = 2007 (13) SCALE 18 : In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme?Court set aside the order of the High Court on the ground that ?regularisation de hors the terms and conditions of the appointment letter and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication.

REGULARISATION OF INITIAL RECRUITMENT :

?????In?Chanchal Goyal (Dr.) vrs State of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 1713 = 2003 (3) CTC 244 =?2003 (97) FLR 7 = JT 2003 (5) SC 144 = RLW 2003 (3) SC 347 = 2003 (2) SCALE 264 = (2003) 3 SCC 485 = [2003] 2 SCR 112 = 2003 (1) SLJ 1(SC), it has been observed that unless the initial recruitment is regularised through a prescribed agency, there is no scope for a demand for regularisation. In this case it was clearly stipulated in the initial order of appointment that the workman was required to make room once a candidate selected by the Service Commission was available, the non-joining of the said candidate was held to be immaterial on the grounds that the appointment itself was subject to the condition of availability of duly selected candidate, therefore when one candidate did not join, the next in list would have taken his place. (Also see Gurbachan Lal; SBI vrs. Mahatma Mishra, Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. vrs. Mahadeva Laxman Raval and Institute of Management Development vrs. Pushpa Srivastava.)

REGULARISATION : WHAT IT IS?? :

??????It has been ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "regularisation does not mean conferring permanence and it?does not connote conferring permanence". It??is meant to cure defects attributable to methodology involved in making the appointments or to condone the procedural irregularities and judicial process cannot become a mode of making appointments. In this context, the following cases can be referred to :

(i) ?R.N. Nanjundappa vrs. T. Thimmiah, AIR 1972 SC 1767 =1972-I-LLJ-565 = (1972)1 SCC 409 = [1972] 2 SCR 799 : In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled as follows?:

26. If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution illegality cannot be regularised. Ratification or regularisation is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority but there has been some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularisation cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment. To accede to such a proposition would be to introduce a new head of appointment in defiance of rules or it may have the effect of setting at naught the rules. (emphasis supplied)

The esteemed readers may refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court?in?Umadevi?(3) (SCC pp. 24-25, para 16) wherein it has been mentioned as follows:

16. In?B.N. Nagarajan vrs. State of Karnataka,?AIR 1966 SC 1942 = 1967 (15) FLR 332 = 1967-I-LLJ-698 = [1966] 3 SCR 682 , this Court clearly held that the words regular or regularisation do connote permanence and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments. They are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to methodology followed in making the appointments.?We have, therefore, to keep this distinction in mind and proceed on the basis that only something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised and that it alone can be regularised and granting permanence of employment is a totally different concept and cannot be equated with regularisation. (emphasis supplied)

(ii)?Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vrs. Ashok Ranghba Ambre,?2008 (1) ALL MR (SC) 929 = 2008 (3) Bom CR 746 = 2008 (116) FLR 830 = JT 2008 (1) SC 378 = 2008-I-LLJ-820 = 2008 (3) Mh LJ 558 = 2008 (1) SCALE 381 = (2008) 2 SCC 717: In this case, it has been held as follows:

?19. In our opinion, the High Court was in clear error in equating reinstatement of employee in service in earlier proceedings with confirmation and granting status of permanency. Continuation in or regularisation of service of an employee and extending the benefit of confirmation or making him permanent are two different concepts. (emphasis supplied) (see also Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vrs. L.V. Subramanyeswara,JT 2007 (6) SC 594) .

?

REGULARISATION - NOT A MODE OF RECRUITMENT?:

??????It has been ruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "regularisation is not the mode of recruitment". What follows from the above discussion is that regularisation, is not the mode of recruitment by the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or any body or authority governed by a statutory Act or the rules framed thereunder. Without multiplying authorities, suffice it would be to refer to the observations to this effect in para 18 of?Somvir Singh?(supra) and in para 19 of?Prasana Kumar Sahoo?(supra)??and?M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. vrs. Nanuram Yadav, 2007 (2) BLJR 2792 = JT 2007 (11) SC 369 = 2007 (11) SCALE 439 = (2007) 8 SCC 264 = 2008 (1) SLJ 368 (SC) = 2007 AIR SCW 6036.

ILLEGAL APPOINTMENTS?:

??????The Hon'ble Apex Court has stated that mere description of illegal appointments does not mean that they are not illegal. In?Umadevi?'s (3) case, the learned Constitution Bench carved out an exception with respect to duly qualified workmen in duly sanctioned posts who had continued for ten years or more but without any interim orders, the Court directed regularisation of such employees as one-time measure, the extract is reproduced as under:

53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. (emphasis supplied)

It is however settled that a mere description of illegal appointments as irregular would not cure away the illegality. The above apart, the following case-laws are also relevant in this context :

?(i) Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board vrs. Ranjodh Singh & Ors,2006 (13) SCALE 426] : ?Referring to?Uma Devi?(3) [supra] , the Hon'ble Apex Court has opined as follows:

17. A combined reading of the aforementioned paragraphs would clearly indicate that what the Constitution Bench had in mind in directing regularisation was in relation to such appointments, which were irregular in nature and not illegal ones.

(ii) ?Punjab State Warehousing Corporation vrs ?Manmohan Singh?, 2007 (3) SCALE. 401 (supra)?,?

(iii) ?Ashok Kumar Sonkar vrs. Union of India,??2007 (3) AWC 2846 (SC) = JT 2007 (6) SC 127 = 2007 (3) SCALE 517 = (2007) 4 SCC 54 = 2007 (3) SLJ 420 (SC)?and

(iv)? M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd., Bhopal vrs Nanuram Yadav,(2007) 8 SCC 264?

In the above three decisions. the Hon'ble Supreme Court termed the appointments made in violation of the recruitment rules as an illegal appointments, terming such appointments as nullity in the eye of the law.

NO PERPETUATION OF ILLEGAL APPOINTMENTS?:?NO EQUALITY CAN BE CLAIMED IN ILLEGALITY

??????The Hon'ble Apex court has stated, Illegality having been committed in past is no ground that it should be perpetuated; Article 14 has a positive concept. The fact that all appointments have been made without following the procedure, or services of some persons appointed have been regularised in the past, is not the ground on which regularisation shall be granted. If illegality has been committed in the past, then such illegality cannot be allowed to perpetuate. Article 14 has a positive concept. No equality can be claimed in illegality. Article 14 has no application or justification to legitimise an illegal and illegitimate action.

Article 14 proceeds on the premise that a citizen has legal and valid right enforceable at law and persons having similar right and persons similarly circumstanced, cannot be denied of the benefit thereof. Such person cannot be discriminated to deny the same benefit. The rational relationship and legal back-up are the foundations to invoke the doctrine of equality in case of persons similarly situated, however, if some persons derived benefit by illegality and had escaped from the clutches of law, similarly placed persons cannot plead, nor can the court countenance that benefit had from infraction of law and must be allowed to be retained. The esteemed readers may refer to the?observations to same effect in the following cases which have been referred ibid :

(i) Bihar Public Service Commission, Para 10;

(ii) Tutu Das (Dutta);

(iii) Somvir Singh and

????????????? (iv) K. Brahmanandam.

APPLICATION OF UMA DEVI'S CASE AND ITS LIMITATION?:

??????It has been stated by the Hon'ble Apex Court that?Umadevi's case (3)?applies in cases concerning industrial adjudicators' powers. The powers of industrial adjudicators to vary the terms of contract are well documented, however the same cannot be read to mean that the industrial adjudicator can issue directions relating to regularisation running counter to the ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in?U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. vrs. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh, 2007 (113) FLR 821 = JT 2007 (5) SC 611 = 2007-II-LLJ-832 = 2007 (5) SCALE 732 = (2007) 5 SCC 755 = 2007 AIR SCW 2776. held that though the industrial adjudicator can modify the relief, however, he does not have the power to dilute the observation of the Constitution Bench on the issue of regularisation.

INTERPRETATION OF 240 DAYS WORK?:?DOES IT CONFER CLAIM FOR REGULARISATION

??????The Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that completion of 240 days confers no right to regularisation. It is settled law that merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services are liable to be regularised, it would be apt here to quote the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme?Court in?Gangadhar Pillai vrs. Siemens Ltd., 2007 (2) ALL MR (SC) 449 = 2007 (112) FLR 152 = JT 2006 (10) SC 265 = 2006 (11) SCALE 635 = (2007) 1 SCC 533 = 2006 AIR SCW 6414 = 2007-I-LLJ-717 wherein the following has been laid down :

28. It is not the law that on completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year, the employee concerned becomes entitled to for regularisation of his services and/or permanent status. The concept of 240 days in a year was introduced in the industrial law for a definite purpose. Under the Industrial Disputes Act, the concept of 240 days was introduced so as to fasten statutory liabilities upon the employer to pay compensation to be computed in the manner specified in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before he is retrenched from services and not for any other purpose. In the event a violation of the said provision takes place, termination of services of the employee may be found to be illegal, but only on that account, his services cannot be directed to be regularised. Direction to reinstate the workman would mean that he gets back the same status. (emphasis supplied)

The esteemed readers may also refer the following decisions :

(i) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. vrs. Dan Bahadur Singh,AIR 2007 SC 2733 = 2007 (4) ALL MR (SC) 756 = (2008) 1Comp L J 381(SC) = 2007 (114) FLR 204 = JT 2007 (6) SC 320 = 2007-III-LLJ-234 = (2007) 6 MLJ 267 (SC) = 2007 (6) SCALE 415 = (2007) 6 SCC 207 = 2007 AIR SCW 4933;

(ii) Tutu Das (Dutta) [supra]?and

(iii) Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalaya vrs. United Trades Congress, 2008 (56) BLJR 520 = 2008 (116) FLR 415 = 2008-I-LLJ-875 = 2007 (14) SCALE 590 = (2008) 2 SCC 552 = 2008 AIR SCW 193 = 2008 (1) LHSC 707 = 2007(8) Supreme 368.

REGULARISATION EFFECTED PRIOR TO UMA DEVI'S DECISION?:

??????In?Uma Devi's case (3), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that regularisation done prior to?Umadevi?(3)?need not be opened up. In SCC p. 42, para 53 of?Umadevi?(3), the Constitution Bench has ruled as follows :

53.?We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. (emphasis supplied)

However, in a few decisions, namely,?State of Punjab vrs. Lakhwinder Singh,?JT 2010 (3) SC 497?and Rajasthan Krishi Vishva Vidhyalaya vrs. Devi Singh ,?2008 (116) FLR 1183, the Apex Court in matters where regularisation had been granted prior to Umadevi (3), still in its wisdom remanded the matter back for fresh decision in accordance with the principles laid down in?Umadevi?(3). A perusal of these judgments shows that the plea of regularisation done prior to?Umadevi?(3) shall not be opened as has been laid down in para 53 was not taken, but for which the remand orders would not have been passed.

THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK?:

??????The Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked. In?KGSD Canteen Employees Welfare Association, AIR 2006 SC 845, while adjudicating on the question of the remuneration to be paid to temporary employees, the Apex Court rejected the contention of parity in pay scale holding as follows:

48. The contention that at least for the period they have worked they were entitled to remuneration in the scale of pay as that of the government employees cannot be accepted for more than one reason. They did not hold any post. No post for the canteen was sanctioned by the State. According to the State, they were not its employees. Salary on a regular scale of pay, it is trite, is payable to an employee when he holds a status. (emphasis supplied)

Similar ruling was given in?Yogesh Chandra Dubey?(supra)?wherein while drawing a distinction with a person who is appointed after following the recruitment rules to a post, the Apex Court following the earlier judgment in?KGSD Canteen Employees Welfare Association,held that since the temporary employees were not appointed to any post therefore they were not entitled to any scale of pay. In?State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, 2002 (3) AWC 2375 (SC) = 2003 (8) SCALE 259 = (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1595, it has been held that?daily wagers were only entitled to receive the minimum of pay scale received by employees in regular government service but would not be entitled to any other allowances or increment.

??????In?State of Haryana vrs. Charanjit Singh, AIR 2006 SC 161 = 2005 (107) FLR 994 = JT 2005 (12) SC 475 = 2006-I-LLJ-431 = 2005 (8) SCALE 482 = (2006) 9 SCC 321, it was held that classification on the basis of mode of election/recruitment for the purpose of disbursement of wages was valid and in case of contract employees the wages/salary would have to be paid in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the letter of appointment.

???????In?State of Haryana vrs. Shakuntala Devi,AIR 2009 SC 869 = 2008 (119) FLR 1169 = 2008 (13) SCALE 621 = 2009 (2) SLJ 183 (SC) = 2008 AIR SCW 8180 = 2009 (1) LHSC 449 it was held that a temporary employee is not entitled to the benefit of family pension scheme. The esteemed readers may also refer the following decisions :

(i)?State of Punjab vrs. Surinder Singh,2007 (115) FLR1003 = 2008 (3) JKJ 99 [SC] = 2008-II-LLJ-1 2007 (12) SCALE 602 = 2008 (1) SLJ 304

(ii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vrs. L.V. Subramanyeswara,JT 2007 (6) SC 594

(iii) Mahadeo Bhau Khilare (Mane) vrs State of Maharashtra and others,2007 (6) ALL MR (SC) 476 = 2007 (114) FLR 420 = JT 2007 (6) SC 562 = 2007 (6) SCALE 695 = (2007) 5 SCC 524 = 2008 (1) SLJ 74(SC)?and?

(iv) CIT vrs. Susheela Prasad, 2008 (116) FLR374 = 2008-I-LLJ-857SC = 2007 (3) SCALE 406 .

THE DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION?:

??????The Hon'ble Apex?Court has ruled that the??doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked by temporary employees to claim that they be made permanent and the fact that in certain cases the court had directed that the employees be made permanent cannot be used to found a claim based on legitimate expectation. In?Umadevi?(3)'s case it has?been ruled as follows :

47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post. (emphasis supplied)

This was followed in?Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(supra)?and in?Chanchal Goyal?(Dr.).

NO INTERIM ORDERS IN CASE OF REGULARISATION?:

??????It has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that?interim orders should?be refused in case of claim for regularisation. In?Secretary,State of Karnataka vrs. Umadevi?(3)[supra], the Hon'ble Apex Court deprecated the practice of the High Courts of staying regular selection and laid down that the High Courts should not issue interim directions since if the employee ultimately is found to be entitled to a relief, the same could be moulded accordingly.

DECISIONS RUNNING CONTRARY TO? UMA DEVI?:?THE CONCLUSION

??????The Hon'ble Supreme Court , denuding of decisions running contrary to ratio laid down in?Umadevi?(3),has overruled all the decisions in which directions contrary to what had been stated by the Constitution Bench had been given, the extract is reproduced herein :

54. It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.

The esteemed readers may?also refer?Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel vrs. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel, AIR 2008 SC 2675 = 2008 (5) ALD 99 (SC) = 2008 (2) AWC 1636 (SC) = 2008 (5) Bom CR 441 = (2009)1 GLR 200 (SC) = 2008 (3) JCR 14 (SC) = JT 2008 (3) SC 530 = RLW 2008 (4) SC 3440 = 2008 (4) SCALE 601 = (2008) 4 SCC 64 = 2008 AIR SCW 4475 = AIR 2008 SC 2675 = (2008)?4 SCC 649 = 2008 (3) Civil LJ 798 = 2008 (3) AICLR 9 = 2008 (2) Supreme 413 = 2008 (5) LH (SC) 3092 .

??????The esteemed readers, however, may please note that in?Uttar Pradesh?State Electricity Board vrs. Pooran Chandra Pandey?,?2008 (1) AWC 331 (SC) = 2008 (116) FLR 1172 = JT 2007 (12) SC 179 = 2008-I-LLJ-1021 = 2008 (1) SLJ 314 (SC) = 2007AIR SCW 6904,a Divison Bench?of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed regularisation overlooking the judgment of?Umadevi?(3). The aforesaid judgment came up for consideration before a three-Judges Bench of the Apex Court in?Official Liquidator vrs. Dayanand,?2009-III-LLJ-305 = 2008 (13) SCALE 558 = (2008) 10 SCC 1; wherein while heavily advocating judicial discipline the Court held the observations made in?Pooran Chandra Pandey?to be treated as obiter and not as binding by the High Courts, tribunals and other judicial fora.