Summary
The Supreme Court required a pragmatic application of Jharkhand’s 2015 Regularisation Rules to employees admittedly appointed irregularly. Insisting on ten years’ service by 10 April 2006 would defeat the measure in a State created in November 2000. The appellants’ service up to promulgation of the Rules was to count; those completing ten years should be regularised absent a valid objection, with the State deciding within four months.
Issues
- Whether the appellants could be denied regularisation solely because they lacked ten years’ service by 10 April 2006.
Provisions considered
- Rule 3(ka)(i): ten-year service criterion, Jharkhand Sarkar ke Adhinasth Aniyamit Rup se Niyukt Ewam Karyarat Karmiyo ki Sewa Niyamitikaran Niyamawali, 2015Read pragmatically in the particular context of Jharkhand’s creation and continued irregular appointments; service completed by promulgation of the Rules was to be credited to the appellants. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12)
Held
- Umadevi and Kesari sought both to prevent future irregular appointments and to benefit eligible employees irregularly appointed in the past. Continuing such employment indefinitely while withholding regularisation perpetuated the exploitation those decisions sought to stop. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8)
- Applying the 2006 cut-off literally in Jharkhand would frustrate the purpose of the Rules given the State’s creation in 2000. The appellants were entitled to credit for service up to promulgation; if they had completed ten years, they should be regularised unless a valid objection such as misconduct existed. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
- The State was required to decide the appellants’ regularisation within four months. The Court also urged it to make regular appointments thereafter instead of using irregular appointments to bypass normal recruitment. (¶¶ 12, 14)
Result
High Court judgment set aside; appeals disposed of with a direction to decide regularisation within four months under the Court’s interpretation of the Rules.