K.S.Laxminarayan Shastry vs Union Of India & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 5334 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 1875/2000
%                                                  20th November, 2013

K.S.LAXMINARAYAN SHASTRY                                 ......Petitioner
                 Through: None.


                          VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                    ...... Respondents
                   Through:              None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    Petitioner by this writ petition impugns the order of the

employer/respondent no.2 dated 16.9.1999 whereby a lower wage was

directed to be payable to the petitioner who was a daily wager/casual

labourer.   Though the writ petition contains many reliefs, the sum and

substance of the reliefs is basically the claim of the petitioner for

regularisation from a casual/daily wage labourer to a regular employee.


2.    The Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC has

laid down the following ratio.
WPC 1875/2000                                                               Page 1 of 4
       "(I)   The questions to be asked before regularization are:-

      (a)(i) Was there a sanctioned post (court cannot order creation
      of posts because finances of the state may go haywire), (ii) is
      there a vacancy, (iii) are the persons qualified persons and (iv)
      are the appointments through regular recruitment process of
      calling all possible persons and which process involves inter-se
      competition among the candidates

      (b) A court can condone an irregularity in the appointment
      procedure only if the irregularity does not go to the root of the
      matter.

      (II) For sanctioned posts having vacancies, such posts have to
      be filled by regular recruitment process of prescribed procedure
      otherwise, the constitutional mandate flowing from Articles
      14,16,309, 315, 320 etc is violated.

      (III) In case of existence of necessary circumstances the
      government has a right to appoint contract employees or casual
      labour or employees for a project, but, such persons form a class
      in themselves and they cannot claim equality(except possibly for
      equal pay for equal work) with regular employees who form a
      separate class.    Such temporary employees cannot claim
      legitimate expectation of absorption/regularization as they knew
      when they were appointed that they were temporary inasmuch as
      the government did not give and nor could have given an
      assurance of regularization without the regular recruitment
      process being followed. Such irregularly appointed persons
      cannot claim to be regularized alleging violation of Article 21.
      Also the equity in favour of the millions who await public
      employment through the regular recruitment process outweighs
      the equity in favour of the limited number of irregularly
      appointed persons who claim regularization.


WPC 1875/2000                                                             Page 2 of 4
       (IV) Once there are vacancies in sanctioned posts such
      vacancies cannot be filled in except without regular recruitment
      process, and thus neither the court nor the executive can frame a
      scheme to absorb or regularize persons appointed to such posts
      without following the regular recruitment process.

      (V) At the instance of persons irregularly appointed the
      process of regular recruitment shall not be stopped. Courts
      should not pass interim orders to continue employment of such
      irregularly appointed persons because the same will result in
      stoppage of recruitment through regular appointment procedure.

      (VI) If there are sanctioned posts with vacancies, and qualified
      persons were appointed without a regular recruitment process,
      then, such persons who when the judgment of Uma Devi is
      passed have worked for over 10 years without court orders, such
      persons be regularized under schemes to be framed by the
      concerned organization.

      (VII) The aforesaid law which applies to the Union and the
      States will also apply to all instrumentalities of the State
      governed by Article 12 of the Constitution".

3.           In view of above, the relief claimed of regularization cannot be

granted to the petitioner who is only a daily wager/casual labourer. So far as

the claim for higher wages is concerned, it is the legal right and entitlement

of an employer to fix any particular remuneration payable to any daily

wager/casual labourer, and such persons cannot claim any particular higher

monetary emoluments inasmuch as there is no such law to this effect giving

a legal right or cause of action for higher wage. It is not the case of the


WPC 1875/2000                                                              Page 3 of 4
 petitioner that he is not being paid a minimum wage or that a particular law

entitles a particular higher wage which is denied to him by the employer.


4.           In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and

petitioner neither can be granted regularization nor a particular

pay/wage/monetary emoluments. The writ petition is therefore dismissed,

leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




NOVEMBER 20, 2013                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib