Summary
The Court set aside directions requiring the Postal Department to reformulate its regularisation policy and sanction posts for contingent-paid part-time sweepers. No sanctioned posts existed and the employees did not qualify under the policy consistent with Umadevi. Courts could not compel creation of posts or a particular regularisation scheme. Although the Court rejected salary parity as a general entitlement in this context, it expressly preserved these respondents’ minimum-basic-pay relief because of its earlier order limiting the appeal.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could compel creation of posts and reformulation of the regularisation policy for contingent-paid part-time sweepers.
- Whether lengthy part-time service without a sanctioned post conferred a right to regularisation or salary parity.
- Whether the minimum-basic-pay direction remained protected for the particular respondents by the earlier Supreme Court order.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14, 16 and 226, Constitution of IndiaRegularisation must respect the constitutional recruitment scheme. Judicial review did not authorise the mandatory directions to create posts and frame a particular policy; the respondents lacked sanctioned posts and eligibility under the applicable scheme. (¶¶ 5.2, 5.3, 8, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8)
- Clauses (i)–(iv), Department of Posts regularisation policy dated 30 June 2014The policy covered eligible irregularly appointed qualified persons serving against sanctioned posts for the prescribed period as at 10 April 2006, excluding illegal engagements. The respondents did not qualify. (¶¶ 8.1, 8.2, 8.8)
Held
- The respondents were contingent-paid part-time sweepers and no sanctioned posts existed in their post office. Assertions of continuous full-day work lacked evidentiary support. Length of service alone did not establish entitlement to regularisation without the required post and scheme eligibility. (¶¶ 8, 8.4, 8.6, 8.8)
- Creation and sanction of posts and formulation of a regularisation scheme lay with the Government. On these facts the High Court could not use Article 226 to mandate creation of posts or reformulation of the policy. The 2014 policy accorded with Umadevi and did not cover these part-time employees without sanctioned posts. (¶¶ 8.1, 8.4, 8.5, 8.8)
- The Court applied the rule that part-time temporary employees in this context could not claim parity with regular government employees merely through equal-pay reasoning. It considered the minimum-basic-pay direction unsustainable as a general direction. (¶¶ 8.6, 8.7, 8.9)
- The earlier Supreme Court order had declined interference with paragraph 23 granting minimum basic pay to the specified twenty-year part-time workers. Consequently, although the impugned directions were set aside, the judgment expressly preserved paragraph 23 relief for these respondents. Their protection did not establish a general entitlement for all such workers. (¶¶ 3, 8.9, 9)
Result
Both appeals allowed; High Court directions set aside, expressly preserving these respondents’ paragraph 23 minimum-basic-pay relief. No costs.