Under Service Jurisprudence, the appointment, regularization and fixation of the pay of daily wager employees have been blazing issues. In the context of daily wager employees of universities or colleges in Madhya Pradesh, the following questions under service laws are analysed and answered herein: –
- Whether the Madhya Pradesh Daily Wages Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 / Madhya Pradesh Dainik Vetanbhogee Karmacharee (Seva kee Sharten) Niyam, 2013, (herein after called “the Rules”) are also applicable to the daily wages employees of the university and colleges in Madhya Pradesh;
- Whether daily wagers of the said universities and colleges, who are recruited without following legal procedure and appointed against no-post, are entitled for benefits under the Rules; and
- Whether daily wages of the said universities and colleges, who are recruited without following legal procedure and appointed against no-post, are entitled for regularization under any service rules.
With reference to question no. 1 above, the legal preposition along with reasoning is as follows:
- The Governor of Madhya Pradesh invoking the powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India formulated the Rules. Rule 2(b) defines “Employees” the daily wages employees working in the different departments of State Government of Madhya Pradesh.
- The daily wagers of universities and colleges are not the employees of the departments of MP State Government. Unless the Rules are adopted by a particular university or college by an official notification, such Rules will not be applicable to the daily wagers of that university or college.
With reference to question no. 2, the legal preposition along with reasoning is as follows:
- Even if the Rules are adopted by a college or university, the daily wagers of that college or university, who are recruited without following legal procedure and appointed against no sanctioned posts, shall not be entitled for any benefit under Rules 7, 8 and 9, as such benefits are made available only to regular daily wagers. The employees whose services are totally illegal in law cannot be equated with the employees who are recruited as par standard norms and procedure of law. The Rules are promulgated to waive the legal requirements of law, and are not created to legalize the services of illegally appointed persons.
- In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Suresh Kumar, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that the daily wager employees, whose appointments are illegal, are not to be entitled for regularization. Relying on the same, the General Administration Department of M.P., vide its Circular No. F.5-3/2006/1/3 dated 16.5.2007, issued directions that illegal appointments means the appointment made without any sanctioned post. The employees of the colleges, who are recruited against no posts, cannot claim for all benefits under the Rules.
- In this context, the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal & Ors. (AIR 2011 SC 1193) (Para 8) is also relevant, which laid down:
Mere continuation of service by any temporary or ad hoc or daily wage employee, under the cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be litigious employment. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularization, if he is not working against a sanctioned post.
With reference to question no. 3, the legal preposition along with reasoning is as follows:
- The Government of M.P., vide its Circular No. F.5-3/2006/1/3 dated 08.02.2008, also clarified that employees, who are recruited against no post, cannot claim regularization. Therefore, the employees of a college or university, who are recruited against no post, cannot claim regularization.
- In the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006(4) SCC 1; AIR 2006 SC 806; 2006 AIR SCW 1991), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the temporary or casual labourers cannot claim a regularization as illegal appointees. It is also pertinent to note that in the case of Gaziabad Development Authority & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar & Anr. [(2008) 4 SCC 261; AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1334] and Management, the Assistant Salt Commissioner v. Secretary, Central Salt Mazdoor Union [JT 2008(2) SC 469; 2008 AIR SCW 1443], it was founded that any recruitment that dehors the recruitment rules as well as constitutional scheme is void.
In the light of the discussions above, the daily wagers of any college or university, who are recruited without following legal procedure and appointed against no-post, are not entitled for regularization under any service rules.