Employee on continuous and long-period part-time service has not right to be regularised

In paragraph 8 of State of Tamil Nadu v. Singamuthu [(2017) 4 SCC 113], the Honourable Supreme Court laid down as follows:

"8 Part-time of casual employment is meant to serve the exigencies of administration. It is a settled principle of law that continuance in service for long period on part-time or temporary basis confers no right to seek regularisation in service. The person who is engaged on temporary or casual basis is well aware of the nature of his employment and he consciously accepted the same at the time of seeking employment. Generally, while directing that temporary or part-time appointments be regularised or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the long period of service rendered by the employees. However, this may not be always a correct approach to adopt especially when the scheme of regularisation is missing from the rule book and regularisation casts huge financial implications on public exchequer." (emphasis given) "[Para No.21]

    Going by the ratio decidendi in the above-cited precedents, the law is well settled that merely because a person claims to be in continuous service for a long period, on part-time basis, it does not confer on him any right to seek regularisation of service. The courts should not be swayed by a long period, especially when the scheme of regularisation is absent. Further, there can be no rule of the thumb particularly without the existence of a vacancy.[Para No.22]

Accused is entitled for benefit of doubt when there is unexplained delay in forwarding seized article to the court

The alleged occurrence was on 15.11.2011. Ext.P8 property list shows that the seized substances were produced in the court only on 19.11.2011. The prosecution has not explained the reason for the delay in producing the seized substances, including the samples, before the court. It is not explained what prevented the detecting officer or the investigating officer to produce the seized articles in the court immediately after the seizure. In view of the unexplained delay in producing the seized articles before the court, tampering with such articles at the police station cannot be ruled out.[Para No.39]

   

    There is also no reliable evidence as to who was having the custody of the seized articles till they were produced in the court and in what condition they were kept in the police station. PW3 has given evidence that the properties might have been kept in the police station during the period between 16.11.2011 to 18.11.2011 and they would have been in the custody of the Station Writer. But, the evidence of PW6 Circle Inspector, who conducted the investigation of the case on the date of occurrence, is that the properties were in the custody of PW3 Sub Inspector till they were produced in the court. He has stated that he had received the properties but he entrusted them with the Sub Inspector himself for producing them before the court.[Para No.40]

    To put it in a nutshell, the unexplained delay in producing the seized substances before the court and absence of evidence as to how and in what condition the seized substances, including the samples, were kept in the police station till the date of their production in the court alongwith the circumstance that there is absence of evidence regarding the nature of the seal used by the detecting officer for sealing the sample packets, create doubt as to whether seizure of the substances was effected from the accused in the manner alleged by the prosecution. The benefit of that doubt shall be given to the accused.[Para No.45]