Case Note & Summary
The State of Tamil Nadu appealed against a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court which affirmed a Single Judge order directing the State to create posts designated as 'Village Level Workers' (Makkal Nala Paniyalargal or MNP) and absorb all persons who were on the rolls of MNP as on 8th November 2011 into any vacant posts in State government schools, panchayats, municipalities, corporations, collector offices, village offices, or other government undertakings, according to their qualifications and without age restrictions. The High Court further directed that if any MNP could not be accommodated or was ineligible, the State should pay the last drawn salary from 1st December 2011 to 31st May 2012. The background of the case is that the Government of Tamil Nadu introduced a scheme on 2nd September 1989 through the Rural Development Department to provide employment to educated youth in rural areas who had completed 10th standard. The scheme aimed to engage at least two village level workers (one male and one female) in each village panchayat, totaling 25,234 workers, on a monthly honorarium of Rs.200. The scheme was later disbanded on 13th July 1991 on the ground that the appointments were not helpful for executing programmes at the village level. The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the High Court was justified in directing absorption of MNP workers into regular government posts and whether such workers had any legal right to regularisation. The State argued that the MNP scheme was a temporary policy measure and the workers were not employees of the State but were engaged on honorarium basis. The respondents (MNP workers) contended that they had been working for a long period and deserved regularisation. The Supreme Court analysed the scheme and found that it was a temporary arrangement to provide employment to educated unemployed youth in rural areas, and the workers were not appointed against sanctioned posts. The Court held that the scheme did not create any right to regular employment and the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 by directing creation of posts and absorption. The Court also noted that the direction to pay last drawn salary to ineligible workers was unsustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the MNP workers.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation - Temporary Scheme Workers - No Right to Absorption - The State Government introduced a scheme in 1989 to engage educated unemployed youth as Village Level Workers (MNP) on honorarium. The scheme was disbanded in 1991. The High Court directed absorption of MNP workers into regular government posts. The Supreme Court held that the scheme was a temporary policy measure and did not create any right to regular employment. The workers were not appointed against sanctioned posts and were not employees of the State. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 by directing creation of posts and absorption. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 - Limits of Judicial Review - The High Court cannot direct the State to create posts or regularise temporary scheme workers in the absence of any legal right or statutory scheme. The direction to pay last drawn salary to ineligible workers was also unsustainable. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in directing the State Government to create posts and absorb Makkal Nala Paniyalargal (MNP) workers who were engaged under a temporary government scheme, and whether such workers have a legal right to regularisation.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the MNP workers.
Law Points
- Regularisation of temporary workers
- Government policy scheme
- No right to absorption
- Distinction between scheme and regular employment
- Article 226 jurisdiction
