Neeraj Kumar Gupta and Others vs Delhi Vidyut Board

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—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. 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''.

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.

Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, 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 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 Umadevi 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.

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.

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). The writ petition is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.