State of Himachal Pradesh, Through the Secretary Agriculture to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla v. Nodha Ram and Ors.

Leave granted. Heard Counsel on both sides. The facts are that the respondents were engaged on daily wages on mus­ ter 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 serv­ ices 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 direc­ tion, this appeal by special leave has heen filed. 54 \. STATE OF H.P. v. NODHA RAM SS It is seen that when the project is completed and closed due to non­ availability 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 con­ tinue them in other places. No vested right is created in temporary employ­ ment. 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 consid­ ered 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. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.