SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- P. Venkatarama Reddy and C.K. Thakker, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 2005, Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17573 of 2004. D/d. 12.7.2005.

State of M.P. and others - Appellants

Versus

Santosh Kumar Sahu and others - Respondents

Right to regularisation - The respondents are working as Drivers and Lower Division Clerks on casual muster-roll basis - Questions whether respondents entitled to benefit of circular regarding regularisation automatically without having regard to relevant aspects and conditions and question whether apart from the circular, the respondents have a right to claim regularisation in view of their long-standing service as casual employees by virtue of the constitutional guarantees enshrined in Part III of the Constitution - High Court is not justified in rejecting the appeal at the stage of admission as arguable question do arise for consideration - The impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted to High Court for fresh disposal on merits.

[Paras 2 and 3]

ORDER

P. Venkatarama Reddy, J. - Leave granted.

2. The respondents herein, who are working as Drivers and Lower Division Clerks on casual muster-roll basis, filed a petition before the State Administrative Tribunal for regularisation of their services and consequential benefits and the same was later on transferred to the Single Judge of the High Court and the proceedings were treated as writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with the following observations:

"It is no more in dispute that vide Annexure A-6 dated 20-12-1999 the employees (list has been annexed to this document) were ordered to be regularised and later on ban came into force on 14-1-2000. The case of the petitioners is prior to the date of ban and therefore, his case of regularisation is made out. Since there is specific order of regularising them, which has not been disputed by the respondents, therefore, a case of regularisation is made out and accordingly the order Annexure A-6, indeed which is an order to regularise the petitioners and others, shall be given effect to by the respondents."

3. On a letters patent appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court rejected the appeal in limine observing that they found no scope for interference in the intra-court appeal. It is apparent from the order of the learned Single Judge that two considerations weighed with him in granting relief to the respondents. First is that in view of the circular dated 20-12-1999 (Annexure A-6 to the writ petition), the respondents are entitled for regularisation; and secondly, the ban against regularisation which was subsequently clamped on 14-1-2000, does not operate against the respondent employees. Though no exception can be taken to the second reason given by the High Court as far as applicability of the circular dated 20-12-1999 is concerned, it is a debatable point whether the respondents can automatically get the benefit of regularisation. The learned Single Judge of the High Court proceeded on the basis that the writ petitioners have "made out" the case for regularisation in terms of the said circular, without adverting to the relevant aspects of that circular. The learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the circular dated 20-12-1999 does not contemplate automatic regularisation and it has to be done in accordance with the conditions and restrictions prescribed by the Government or the department concerned from time to time. This contentious point ought to have been examined by the Division Bench of the High Court. Moreover, the question whether apart from the circular, the respondents have a right to claim regularisation in view of their long-standing service as casual employees by virtue of the constitutional guarantees enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, should have also been considered by the High Court. We are, therefore, of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court is not justified in rejecting the appeal at the stage of admission as arguable questions do arise for consideration.

4. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh disposal on merits after admission of the case. It is desirable that the appeal is heard and disposed of at an early date, preferably by the end of this year.

5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

.