of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Ashwani Kumar & Ors 
INSC 9 (3 January 1996)
S.P. (J) Bharucha S.P. (J) Ahmad Saghir S. (J)
1996 AIR 960 1996 SCC (1) 683 JT 1996 (1) 1 1996 SCALE (1)57
O R D
Counsel on both sides.
facts are that the respondent was engaged on daily wages on muster roll basis
in Central Scheme and were paid out of the funds provided by the Central
Government. It is stated that after the scheme was closed their services were
dispensed with. When the respondents filed the writ petition in the High Court,
the High Court gave interim direction dated 6th January, 1993 and directed them to be re-engaged
elsewhere. Pursuant to the interim direction the writ petition came to be disposed
of on March 9, 1993. Thus this appeal by special leave.
seen that when the project is completed and closed due to non-availability of
funds, consequently, the employees have to go along with the closed project.
The High Court was not right in giving the direction to regularise them or to
continue them in other places. No vested right is created in temporary
employment. Directions cannot be given to regularise their services in the
absence of any existing vacancies nor directions be given to create posts by
the State to a non-existent establishment. The Court would adopt pragmatic
approach in giving directions.The directions would amount to creating of posts
and continuing them in spite of non-availability of the work. We are of
considered view that the directions issued by the High Court are absolutely
illegal warranting our interference. The order of the High Court is set side.
appeal is allowed. No Costs.