Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THROUGH THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURE TO THE GOVT. OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA versus NODHA RAM AND ORS.

Decided
3 January 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 54 · 1996 INSC 13

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted. Heard Counsel on both sides.

p. 54, margin F

The facts are that the respondents were engaged on daily wages on muster roll basis in Central Scheme and were paid out of the funds provided by the Central Government. It is stated that after the Scheme was closed their services were dispensed with. When the respondents filed the writ petition in the High Court, the High Court gave interim directi.on on November 18, 1992 and directed their re-engagement elsewhere. Against the aforesaid interim direction, this appeal by special leave has heen filed.

p. 54, margin F

STATE OF H.P. NODHA RAM SS

p. 55

It is seen that when the project is completed and closed due to nonavailability of funds, the employees have to go along with its closure. The High Court was not right in giving the direction to regularise them or to continue them in other places. No vested right is created in temporary employment. Directions cann_ot be given to regularise their services in the absence of any existing vacancies nor can directions be given to the State to create posts in a non-exist~nt establislunent. The Court would adopt pragn1atic approach in giving directions. !he directions would amount to creating of posts and continuing them despite non-availability of the work. We are of the considered view that the directions issued by the High Court are absolutely illegal warranting our interference. The order of the High Court is, therefore, set side.

p. 55, margin A

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.

p. 55, margin C