Union of India & Ors Vs. Bishamber Dutt
 INSC 1309 (23
O R D
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi.
admitted position is that the respondent along with others came to be appointed
on September 3, 1990, November 14, 1991 and September 14, as Class IV employees in the office of
the Controller of Defence Accounts on part-time basis. There is a controversy
as to whether they are appointed on hourly basis or on regular basis. The
admitted position is that they were receiving the consolidated pay of Rs. 500/-
per month which was raised to Rs.600/- per month for working six hours a day.
It is not necessary to consider the case whether it full-time or hourly basis
or monthly basis. Suffice it to state that they were not appointed to a regular
post after selection according to rules; they were appointed as part-time
employees de hors the rules. The question, therefore, is : whether they are
entitled to the temporary status or regularisation as directed by the Tribunal?
It is seen that pursuant to the enquiry whether temporary status should be
granted to the part-time employees, directions were issued by the Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension dated July 12, 1994 in the Memorandum, Clause 3, that they are not entitled to
such status. Since they are not appointed on regular basis in accordance with
rules the direction issued by the Tribunal to regularise the service is
obviously illegal. It is then contended by the learned counsel for the
respondents that in view of the fact that they were regularly working for a
long time they are entitled to regularisation. We do not appreciate the stand
taken on behalf of the respondents. Unless they are appointed on regular basis
according to rules after consideration of the claims on merits, there is no
question of regularisation of the services.
appeals are accordingly allowed. The orders of the Tribunal is set aside. No