of Haryana Vs. Surinder Kumar & Ors  INSC 268 (10 March 1997)
RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
R D E R Order dated 2.8.1996 is recalled. Special Leave Petitions are restored.
granted. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, dated November 23, 1995 and July
28, 1995 in C.W.P. Nos. 15828/95 and 1479/95 respectively.
admitted position is that the respondents came to be appointed as daily wagers
on contract basis to the post of Clerk. They filed writ petition in the High
Court for their regularisation. The High Court in the impugned order has
directed payment of wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work and also
regularisation of their services.
these appeals, by special leave.
controversy is no longer res judicata. This Court in State of Haryana v. Piara
Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] has laid down the guidelines for appointment by
recruitment and if need be by regularisation of class IV employees. As a
consequence, any appointment made to the service shall be in accordance with
the statutory rules and also the guidelines laid down thereunder. Therefore,
the appellant is directed to consider their cases in accordance with law and
guidelines laid down therein for appointment of the respondents to the service
as per law provided they are otherwise eligible. If they have become
age-barred, age may be relaxed for the period they have worked. On appointment,
from that date they will be entitled to equal pay on par with the regular
Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the respondents, contends that the post held
by the respondents are interchangeable and in fact they have been interchanged
to enable them to hold the posts. That contention cannot be given acceptance
for the reason that since the respondents were appointed on contract basis on
daily wages, they cannot have any right to a post as such until they are duly
selected and appointed. Merely because they are able to manage to have the
posts interchange, they cannot become entitled to the same pay-scale which the
regular clerks are holding by claiming that they are discharging their duties
as regular employees. The very object of selection is to test the eligibility
and then to make selection in accordance with rules prescribed for recruitment.
Obviously the respondents recruitment was not made in accordance with the
rules. This Court has also pointed out in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Jasmer
Singh & Ors. [JT 1996 (10) SC 876] in that behalf. If any illegal actions
have been taken by the officer after recruitment, it would be a grave matter of
indiscipline by the officers and the higher authorities are directed to look
into the matter and see that such actions are rectified, but that would not be
a matter for this Court to give legitimacy to illegal acts done by the officers
and to grant relief on the basis of wrong or illegal actions of superior
officers. The appropriate authority would look into and take suitable
disciplinary action against the erring officers and submit the report of the
action taken and the result thereof to the Registry of this Court.
appeals are accordingly allowed and the orders of the High Court set aside, but
the directions that would be followed are as indicated in the judgment. It is
needless to mention that they would take expeditious action in following the
directions. No costs.