Delhi High Court
Neeraj Kumar Gupta And Ors. vs Delhi Vidyut Board on 11 October, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.4432/1999
% 11th October, 2013
NEERAJ KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: None.
Versus
DELHI VIDYUT BOARD ...Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. No one appears for the petitioners although it is 12.40 P.M. No
one even earlier appeared for the petitioners on 29.4.2013, 26.11.2012 and
23.11.2012.
2. There are 72 petitioners in this case. Petitioners were appointed
on contract basis as Electrical Inspectors/Supervisors with Delhi Vidyut
Board. They effectively seek their regularization by challenging the
termination clause of contractual appointment letter. It is also prayed that if
in future selection process the petitioners are not appointed, then, they be
appointed on contract/daily wages basis. There is also a claim for „equal pay
for equal work‟.
W.P.(C) No.4432/1999 Page 1 of 4
3. This Court originally passed an interim order protecting the
services of the petitioners, however, by a detailed judgment dated 8.12.1999
interim orders were vacated because petitioners were held not entitled to
continue beyond the contractual period of appointment.
4. Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 has
laid down the following ratio:-
"(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
W.P.(C) No.4432/1999 Page 2 of 4
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.
(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
W.P.(C) No.4432/1999 Page 3 of 4
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".
5. In view of the judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) it is
clear that contractual employees cannot seek regularization. They also
cannot seek further appointments of contract/daily wages basis. So far as the
issue of „equal pay for equal work‟ is concerned, the petitioners cannot claim
equality in status to permanent employees who by the nature of their
services are differently placed.
6. In view of the above, reliefs prayed for in the writ petition and
which are essentially for regularization of contractual employment by
making such appointments as permanent, cannot be granted in view of the
ratio in the case of Umadevi (supra).
7. The writ petition is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to
bear their own costs.
OCTOBER 11, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
