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 RURAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE GOVT. OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA versus ASHWANI KUMAR 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. 56 · 1996 INSC 14

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. 56, margin F

The facts are that the respondent was 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 direction dated 6th January, 1993 and directed them to be re-engaged else where, Pursuant to the interim direction the writ petition came to be disposed of on March 9, 1993. Thus this appeal by special leave.

p. 56, margin F

STATE Or H.P. ASHWANI KUMAR 57

p. 57

It is seen that when the project is completed and closed due to nonavailability of funds, consequently, the employees have to go along with the Closed project. 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 cannot be given to regularise their services in the absence of any existing vacancies nor directions be gi vcn to create posts by the State to a non-existent establishment. The Court would adopt pragmatic approach in giving directions. The directions would amount to creating of posts and continuing them in spite of non-availability of the work. We are of considered view that the directions issued by the High Court are absolutely illegal warranting our interference. The order of the High Court is set side.

p. 57, margin A

The appeal is allowed. No Costs. G.N. Appeals allowed.

p. 57, margin C