Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 963 OF 2010
[Arising out of SLP(C) No.11095/2009]
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .......APPELLANT(S)
Versus
S. VETTU PERUMAL .....RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted. Heard the parties.
2. The respondent was provisionally appointed as
Extra Departmental Messenger in the Telegraph branch ofPost
Office, Nazareth on 8.1.1996. When the Telecom Centre was
opened at Nazareth on 16.8.1996, the respondent was engaged
as a Coolie Messenger on contract basis and charges were
paid to him for delivery of telegrams on hourly basis at
the rates prescribed by the Department. He was neither an
employee on full-time basis nor on a salary or daily wages.
The respondent continued as Coolie Messenger on contract
basis for nearly a decade.
3. On 21.3.2006, a notification was issued by
the BSNL inviting bids for delivery of telegrams on work
contract basis. The respondent submitted his bid of Rs.10/-
per delivery of telegram. The appellant found that the
charges for delivery of telegram nearby Tuticorin was only
Rs.3/- per telegram and compared to it the quotation of
respondent
.....2.
- 2 -
was very high. He was, therefore, invited for a
negotiation. He did not turn up. The contract was,
therefore, awarded to someone else. Feeling aggrieved, the
respondent filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court
for quashing the tender notification dated 21.3.2006 and
for a direction to the Department to 'reinstate' him with
all consequential benefits.
4. A learned single Judge of the High Court
allowed the said petition by order dated 25.1.2007
(modified on 7.6.2007) directing the appellants to consider
the case of the respondent by absorption in any future
vacancy. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed a writ
appeal which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the
High Court on 1.12.2008. The said order is challenged in
this appeal by special leave.
5. The learned single Judge has categorically
recorded a finding that the respondent was working only on
contract basis and payment was made on hourly basis. If
that is so, the respondent could not be considered as an
'employee' either on daily-wage or a salary. In fact, the
respondent participated in the tender process where he was
required to quote the minimum charges for delivery of
telegrams and
......3.
- 3 -
only when his bid was not accepted, he chose to approach
the High Court praying for absorption. Having regard to
the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka
Vs. Umadevi , (2006) 4 SCC 1, the question of directing
regularisation or absorption of Coolie Messenger working on
contract basis paid on hourly basis does not arise.
6. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside
the impugned orders of the learned single Judge affirmed by
the Division Bench. This will not come in the way of
respondent participating in future tender processes or
being considered under any scheme.
.........................J.
( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )
New Delhi; .........................J.
January 25, 2010. ( K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN )