TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: Beas Construction Board Employees Governed by Appointment Terms</h1> The Supreme Court held that the petitioners, appointed by the Beas Construction Board, are employees of the Central Government. Their conditions of ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the petitioners are employees of the Central Government.2. Whether the petitioners' conditions of service are governed by rules applicable to temporary employees of the Central Government.3. Whether the orders of retrenchment proposed or passed against the petitioners violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the petitioners are employees of the Central Government:The petitioners contended that they are employees of the Central Government, while the respondents argued that they were appointed by the Beas Construction Board and not the Central Government. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, particularly sections 79 and 80, and concluded that the petitioners, though appointed by the Beas Construction Board, are indeed employees of the Central Government. The Court noted that the Beas Construction Board was constituted by the Central Government for administrative expediency and acted as a statutory agency for the Central Government. Therefore, the petitioners' appointments were made for the benefit and at the behest of the Central Government.2. Whether the petitioners' conditions of service are governed by rules applicable to temporary employees of the Central Government:The petitioners sought a declaration that they are quasi-permanent employees under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The Court held that while the petitioners have been in continuous temporary service for more than three years, the declaration of quasi-permanent status depends on the satisfaction of the appointing authority regarding their work, conduct, and character. The Court stated that it is not possible to grant this relief as it requires an assessment by the appointing authority. However, the Court clarified that the petitioners could make representations for any benefits they are entitled to under the rules.3. Whether the orders of retrenchment proposed or passed against the petitioners violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution:The petitioners argued that their retrenchment violated the guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 16, as they were being treated differently from deputationists from State Government services. The Court found no substance in this argument, noting that the petitioners and deputationists belong to different classes. The petitioners were appointed on a temporary basis for the Beas Project, while the deputationists were employees of the State Governments. The Court held that the petitioners' retrenchment was in accordance with the terms of their appointment, which provided for termination upon completion of the project. Therefore, the proposed retrenchment did not violate the equality guarantee.Work-Charged Employees:The Court also addressed the cases of work-charged employees, noting that their employment was temporary and tied to specific projects. The Court observed that many work-charged employees had accepted alternative employment or retrenchment compensation. The Court emphasized that work-charged employees are entitled to benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, and noted that a settlement and an award had already provided benefits to these employees. The Court dismissed the petitions of work-charged employees, stating that they are bound by the settlement and award.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the petitioners are employees of the Central Government, but their conditions of service are primarily governed by the terms of their appointment. The Court did not grant the reliefs claimed by the petitioners under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The Court also held that the proposed retrenchment of the petitioners did not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitions, Special Leave Petition, and the C.M.P. for condonation of delay were dismissed. The Court recorded an assurance from the Solicitor General that the 'last come, first go' rule would be applied among the petitioners and that preference would be given to them for future direct recruitments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
