Court Orders Cannot Compel Employment for Unrequired, Non-Perennial Ad Hoc Services.

Ramesh Kumar (applicant in OA No. 816/2016) was initially appointed as a Bearer on an ad-hoc basis in the Departmental Canteen on May 10, 1993, for 80 days, with services extended until October 19, 1994, then discontinued.

Buddhi Prakash Verma (applicant in OA No. 817/2016) was similarly employed as a Wash Boy.

Against the discontinuation of services, Ramesh Kumar filed O.A. No. 543/1994, and the Tribunal directed his regularization on November 16, 2000.

The Union of India challenged this order in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1245/2001 before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan.

Due to a Contempt Petition (No. 11/2001) filed by the applicant for non-implementation of the Tribunal's order, an offer of appointment was issued on March 1, 2002, to Ramesh Kumar as a Bearer, Group 'D', provisionally, subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

He joined on March 8, 2002.

On October 4, 2013, the high court set aside the Tribunal's regularization order, noting that Ramesh Kumar was not in service as of October 1, 1991, to be eligible for regularization under DoPT Circular dated March 20, 1997.

The high court, however, directed the respondents to "sympathetically consider" his continuance in service, noting his satisfactory service, but with the caveat that it should not be cited as a precedent and if there was no other legal impediment.

The respondents subsequently terminated his services via notice dated October 28, 2016.

The applicants challenged this termination by filing the present O.A.s, which were heard together due to common facts and questions of law.

An interim order dated November 24, 2016, by the Tribunal kept the termination notice in abeyance, leading to the applicants' continued service until 2026.

The respondents argued that the Canteen is non-statutory, the appointments were ad-hoc without proper procedure, and the department does not require their services, with post abolishment indicated by OM F. No. 7(1)/E.Coord-1/2017 dated January 5, 2024.

1. Whether the termination notice dated October 28, 2016, issued to the applicants by the respondents is liable to be quashed and set aside.

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to regularization of their services and consequential benefits.

The court primarily applied the principle that regularization is generally not permissible for ad-hoc appointments made without proper procedure, especially when appointments are not on sanctioned posts and the work is not of a perennial nature.

It relied on DoPT OMs dated January 29, 1992, and March 20, 1997, which stipulated that only employees working in Canteens as of October 1, 1991, were eligible for regularization.

The court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in *Union of India & Ors. vs. Bishmber Dutt* (Civil Appeal Nos. 14528-530 of 1996), holding that directions to regularize service are illegal if appointments are not on a regular basis according to rules.

Furthermore, it emphasized the Constitutional Bench ruling in *Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors.* (AIR 2006 SC 1806), which limited regularization as a one-time measure for irregular (not illegal) appointments of qualified persons in sanctioned vacant posts who have worked for ten years or more without court intervention.

The court distinguished cases where regularization was granted based on "inherently perennial nature of work" (*Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors.*, Civil Appeal of 2024, and *Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr.*, Civil Appeal No(s) 8558/2018), noting that this principle was not applicable to the instant case.

The court analyzed the applicants' claims for regularization and the quashing of their termination notice.

It found that the initial appointments were purely ad-hoc, for definite periods, and made without following proper selection procedures or through employment exchanges.

Crucially, the applicants did not meet the eligibility criteria for regularization under DoPT OMs, as they were employed after the cut-off date of October 1, 1991.

The High Court had already rejected their claim for regularization on merits and law by setting aside the Tribunal's earlier order.

The court stressed that the applicants' long service tenure beyond the initial ad-hoc period was solely due to interim judicial orders, not because the department inherently required their services continuously.

It highlighted that the departmental Canteen was non-statutory, and the work performed by the applicants was neither perennial nor fundamental to the functioning of the Customs and Central Excise Department.

The court rejected the argument that indefinite continuation in service due to judicial intervention creates a right to regularization, distinguishing it from cases where the employer voluntarily retained services for extended periods.

Applying the *Umadevi* dictum, the court noted that regularization as a one-time measure applies to employees who worked for years without court intervention in duly sanctioned posts, which was not the situation here.

The "sympathetic consideration" suggested by the high court did not vest any legal right for regularization if there were legal impediments, as was the case here.

It held that the termination notice dated October 28, 2016, issued to the applicants was valid and their services were not liable to be regularized.

The court concluded that the applicants' claim for regularization had already been considered and rejected on its merits and law by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan.

Their continued service was solely due to judicial orders, and the job was not of a perennial nature in a non-statutory canteen, thus falling outside the scope of precedents allowing regularization.

No costs were awarded.