Supreme Court Ruling on Provisional Government Employment: Kamlesh v. Union of India

The case of Kamlesh v. Union of India revolves around the rights of temporary government employees and whether long-term provisional service can be a basis for seeking permanent employment. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated January 20, 2020, dealt with the issue of employment regularization in the postal department, highlighting key principles related to government job appointments and tenure-based employment expectations.

The decision is significant in reaffirming that temporary employment does not confer any legal right to permanent status, ensuring that government appointments remain within the framework of established recruitment rules.

Background of the Case

Kamlesh was appointed as an Extra Departmental Employee (EDE) at the Pooth Kalan Post Office on a provisional basis. Her appointment order explicitly stated that:

The position was temporary and would be terminated when a regular appointment was made.
The appointee had no right to claim permanent status.
The employment could be terminated at any time without notice or reason.

Despite serving for a considerable period, Kamlesh’s employment was discontinued on May 20, 2004. She challenged this decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed her plea for regularization. She then approached the Delhi High Court, which upheld the CAT’s decision. Her subsequent review petition was also dismissed, leading her to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Kamlesh)

She had worked in the position for an extended period, creating a reasonable expectation of regularization.
The postal department’s decision to terminate her service without offering permanent employment was arbitrary.
No regular appointment had been made to replace her, making her termination unfair.
Similar employees had been granted regular status in the past, demonstrating inconsistent treatment.

Arguments by the Respondent (Union of India)

The petitioner was clearly informed at the time of appointment that her position was temporary and not subject to regularization.
Both the CAT and the High Court had rejected her claims based on well-established legal principles.
The service was discontinued per the terms of her appointment.
There was no legal framework allowing a provisional employee to seek permanent status solely based on tenure.

Legal Journey of the Case

Kamlesh pursued multiple legal avenues before reaching the Supreme Court:

Her initial representation for regularization was rejected by the postal department.
She filed a case before the CAT, which ruled against her.
The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT’s ruling and dismissed her petition.
Her review petition before the High Court was also rejected.
The Supreme Court initially denied her special leave petition but allowed her to approach the High Court for further relief.
She filed a miscellaneous application in the High Court, which was dismissed, leading to her appeal to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the previous rulings and determined that:

The petitioner’s appointment was provisional and did not confer any legal right to permanent employment.
Long-term temporary service does not automatically entitle an employee to regularization.
The postal department was within its rights to terminate her employment.
The claim that no regular appointment had replaced her was irrelevant to her legal standing.

However, considering her prolonged service, the Court ruled that Kamlesh could continue in her post until a regular appointment was made but was not entitled to back wages.

Important Judicial Observations

The Supreme Court reiterated that:

Temporary employment cannot be the basis for permanent claims.
Public sector appointments must adhere to transparent recruitment processes.
Government agencies must ensure clarity in employment terms to prevent disputes.
Even if an employee serves for a long period, a legal claim for permanency cannot be assumed.

Key Precedents Cited

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) – Established that ad hoc appointments do not create a right to regularization.
State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (1992) – Held that permanent employment must be granted only through proper selection processes.
State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal (2011) – Reaffirmed that public employment is strictly regulated by recruitment rules.

Impact of the Judgment

The ruling has several significant implications:

Reinforces the principle that government jobs cannot be regularized without proper recruitment processes.
Ensures that temporary employees cannot claim permanency based on extended service.
Provides guidance to government employers on structuring temporary appointments.
Clarifies that courts will not intervene in employment disputes unless clear legal violations occur.

This judgment serves as a reminder that government employment must strictly adhere to legal provisions, ensuring that appointments are made transparently and fairly.

Petitioner Name: Kamlesh.
Respondent Name: Union of India Through Secretary, Department of Post & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice Deepak Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Pooth Kalan Post Office, Delhi.
Judgment Date: 20-01-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Kamlesh vs Union of India Throu Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 20-01-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category