Working For Long Period On Contractual Basis Creates No Vested Right For Regularisation: Supreme Court

Sheryl Sebastian

19 Sep 2023 5:33 AM GMT

  • Working For Long Period On Contractual Basis Creates No Vested Right For Regularisation: Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court recently held that by working for a long period of time on contractual basis, no vested legal right is acquired for regularisation in service. The Apex Court was considering the appeal of persons appointed in Shri Guru Govind Singh Institute of Engineering and Technology on contractual basis since 2011. They had sought regularisation in service in their respective...

    The Supreme Court recently held that by working for a long period of time on contractual basis, no vested legal right is acquired for regularisation in service.

    The Apex Court was considering the appeal of persons appointed in Shri Guru Govind Singh Institute of Engineering and Technology on contractual basis since 2011. They had sought regularisation in service in their respective posts. However, the appointment process for the post had been complete, the State informed the Apex Court.

    A bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi, while appreciating the time spent by the petitioners at the institute, held that they had not acquired any vested legal right to be regularised. The view of the Bombay High Court was thus affirmed:

    "We appreciate the argument of the petitioners that they have given best part of their life for the said college but so far as law is concerned, we do not find their continuous working has created any legal right in their favour to be absorbed. In the event there was any scheme for such regularization, they could have availed of such scheme but in this case, there seems to be none. We are also apprised that some of the petitioners have applied for appointment through the current recruitment process. The High Court has rejected their claim mainly on the ground that they have no right to seek regularization of their service. We do not think any different view can be taken.”

    The matter was argued Advocate Manisha Karia.

    Case Title: Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar V. State Of Maharashtra, Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2543/2023

    Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 801

    Click here to read the order

    Next Story