Service Law- Regularisation

Recent Update

(2018)2 SCeJ 1288 

Service matter  - Regularisation - Regularisation  after 10 years of service  - Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them - If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct etc. 

Held, the purpose and intent of the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 was two-fold - To prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past -  The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed - This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head -  This is precisely what Umadevi (3) and Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247sought to avoid - The pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench.  


Service law – probation  - termination  -  stigma

Service law – Probation  - Termination  -  Stigma - A plain reading of the Order of termination would show that it is an innocuous order terminating the services of Respondent at the end of the probation period - As no allegations of misconduct are made in the Order, there is no stigma  - Though, there was a preliminary inquiry that was conducted into the alleged misconduct, the Appellant decided not to proceed further and hold a departmental inquiry to prove any misconduct of Respondent - However it was decided to terminate the services on completion of the probation period due to unsatisfactory work -  The service of Respondent  was terminated at the end of the period of probation which cannot be said punitive -  Therefore, the Order is an order of termination simpliciter -  It cannot be said that misconduct was the foundation for the order of termination.

2018-1 SCe@j 644

PUNJAB LAW REPORTER - SUPREME COURT e@journal

@Rs 500/- special offer)

 

 Whatsapp/ sms 9463324502