of Himachal Pradesh, Through Thesecretary Agriculture Vs.
Nodha Ram & Ors  INSC 11 (3 January 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
JT 1996 (1) 220 1996 SCALE (1)253
O R D
Counsel on both sides.
facts are that the respondents were 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 on November 18, 1992 and directed their re- engagement
elsewhere. Against the aforesaid interim direction, this appeal by special
leave has been filed.
seen that when the project is completed and closed due to non-availability of
funds, the employees have to go along with its closure. 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 can directions be given to the State to create posts in a non-existent
establishment. The Court would adopt pragmatic approach in giving directions.
The directions would amount to creating of posts and continuing them despite
non-availability of the work. We are of the considered view that the directions
issued by the High Court are absolutely illegal warranting our interference.
The order of the High Court is, therefore, set side.
appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Pages: 1 2