CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHOPAL AND ORS. vs. M/S. LEENA JAIN AND ORS.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 5074/2006Supreme Court2006 INSC 86520 November 2006Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA COMMISSIONER OF5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The respondents, working as Data Entry Operators on a contractual, hourly basis, sought regularization of their services before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). They claimed regularization due to their long tenure. The CAT directed the appellants (Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and others) to consider their cases for regularization. The appellants challenged this order by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which was dismissed. The present appeal is against the High Court's dismissal order. The respondents were paid Rs. 10 per hour, capped at Rs. 50 per day.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in light of the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors. The Court noted that while directing regularization of temporary or casual employees, courts are often swayed by the length of service. However, individuals accepting temporary or casual employment do so with full awareness of its nature and consequences. They cannot claim a right to be made permanent based on the theory of legitimate expectation, especially when appointments to permanent posts must follow a proper selection procedure, potentially involving consultation with the Public Service Commission. Creating another mode of public appointment through regularization of casual employment would undermine the constitutional scheme. The Court emphasized that a person entering temporary employment without a proper selection process is aware of its temporary nature and cannot invoke legitimate expectation for confirmation. The principle established is that temporary or casual employees, who were not appointed through a regular selection process, cannot claim a legal right to be absorbed permanently, and the State has no legal duty to make them permanent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants, thereby upholding the CAT's direction to consider regularization of contractual employees based on long service. Assessee's contentions (Respondents): The respondents argued that since the CAT relied on an earlier judgment, the High Court was justified in not finding any distinguishable features and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. Revenue's contentions (Appellants): The appellants contended that the High Court's decision was contrary to the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors. ([2006] 4 SCC 1).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 19

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHOPAL AND ORS. A v. MIS. LEENA JAIN AND ORS. NOVEMBER 20, 2006 [ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] B Service Law: Regularization-Claim of, by contractual employees on the ground of having worked for considerable length of time-Tribunal directing employer C to consider their case-Writ petition by employer dismissed-On appeal, held, matter requires consideration in the light of decision in Uma Devi's case-Remitted to High Court.

Respondents had been working as Data Entry Operator on contract basis D and were paid on hourly basis. They claimed regularization on the ground that they had been working since long period. Tribunal directed the appellant for considering their case. Aggrieved appellant filed writ petition before High Court, which was dismissed. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court for fresh E consideration in the light of decision in *Uma Devi's case, the Court. HELD: While directing that appointments, temporary or casual be regularized or made permanent, courts are swayed by the fact that the concerned person has worked for some time and in some cases for a consi

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 19

All 53 judgments and leading authorities on Section 19 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →