//
you're reading...
legal issues

Service matter – regularization of service – 445 daily rated employees including 74 respondents herein – High court allowed – become final – Govt. implemented the orders except these respondents herein – filed contempt – pending contempt – in one of the case/Umadevi case, Apex court rejected the claim for regularization – High court held that the Apex court judgement not apples as their orders have become final earlier to the Apex court judgment/Umadevi case – Apex court held that However, as the said stand of the appellants stem from their perception and understanding of the decision in Umadevi (supra) we do not hold them liable for contempt but make it clear that the appellants and all the other competent authorities of the State will now be obliged and duty bound to regularize the services of the respondents (74 in number) which will now be done forthwith and in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.= Malathi Das (Retd.) Now P.B. Mahishy & Ors. … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS Suresh & Ors. … RESPONDENT (S) = 2014 (March. Part )judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41305

Service matter – regularization of service – 445 daily rated employees including 74 respondents herein – High court allowed – become final – Govt. implemented the orders except these respondents herein – filed contempt – pending contempt – in one of the case/Umadevi case, Apex court rejected the claim for regularization  – High court held that the Apex court judgement not apples as their orders have become final earlier to the Apex court judgment/Umadevi case – Apex court held that However, as the said stand of the appellants stem from  their perception and understanding of the decision in Umadevi (supra)  we  do  not hold them liable for contempt but make it clear that the appellants and  all the other competent authorities of the State will now be  obliged  and  duty bound to regularize the services of the respondents  (74  in  number)  which

will now be done forthwith and in any case within a  period  of  two  months from the date of receipt of this order.=

445  daily  rated  employees  of  the  State  serving  in   different

departments, including the 74 respondents herein, had instituted  W.P.  Nos.

39117-176/1999  claiming  regularization  of  service. 

High court batches wise allowed all writ petitions and writ appeals also confirmed ans SLP are dismissed – Govt. in all cases complied the orders of High court with out any contempt of court except these writ petitioners – contempt petition filed and High court found prima faice case and provided time to comply with the order – During the  pendency  of  the  aforesaid  contempt  petition  the  claim  of regularization of respondents was rejected by specific orders passed on  the

ground that the claimants do not fulfill the conditions  for  regularization

as laid down by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and  Others  vs.

Umadevi (3)  and  Others[1]- Raised objection basing on this Apex court judgement – High court overruled that those orders are prior to the Umadevi judgement and as such not applies = hence this appeal =         

In  a  situation

where a Scheme had been framed on 29.12.2005 to give effect to the order  of

the High Court dated 15.12.1999 passed in the writ petitions  filed  by  the

respondents herein and many of the  similarly  situated  persons  have  been

regularized pursuant thereto the action of the appellants  in  not  granting

regularization to the present respondents  cannot  appear  to  be  sound  or

justified.  The fact that the  regularization  of  55  employees,  similarly

situated to the present respondents, was made on 18.04.2006 i.e.  after  the

decision of this Court in Umadevi (supra) is also  not  in  serious  dispute

though Shri Bhat, learned senior counsel for the appellants,  has  tried  to

contend that the said regularizations were made prior  to  the  decision  in

Umadevi (supra).  The date of the order of regularization of the 55  persons

i.e. 18.4.2006 will leave no doubt or  ambiguity  in  the  matter.   In  the

aforesaid undisputed facts it is wholly unnecessary for us  to  consider  as

to whether the cases of persons who  were  awaiting  regularization  on  the

date of the decision in Umadevi (supra) is required  to  be  dealt  with  in

accordance with the conditions stipulated in  para  53  of  Umadevi  (supra)

inasmuch as the claims of the respondent employees can well  be  decided  on

principles of parity.  Similarly placed employees  having  been  regularized

by the State and in case of some of them  such  regularization  being  after

the decision in Umadevi (supra) we are of the view that the stand  taken  by

the appellants in refusing  regularization  to  the  respondents  cannot  be

countenanced.  However, as the said stand of the appellants stem from  their

perception and understanding of the decision in Umadevi (supra)  we  do  not

hold them liable for contempt but make it clear that the appellants and  all

the other competent authorities of the State will now be  obliged  and  duty

bound to regularize the services of the respondents  (74  in  number)  which

will now be done forthwith and in any case within a  period  of  two  months

from the date of receipt of this order.

 

9.    The appeal shall stand disposed of in the above terms.

2014 (March. Part )judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41305

P SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOI

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3338 OF 2014
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9573 OF 2007)
Malathi Das (Retd.) Now P.B. Mahishy & Ors. … APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

Suresh & Ors. … RESPONDENT (S)

 

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is against the order dated 26.03.2007 passed by the High
Court of Karnataka in a contempt proceeding registered as CCC No. 669 of
2006. By the aforesaid order, the High Court, after holding the
appellants, prima facie, guilty of commission of contempt has granted them
two weeks time to comply with the order in respect of which disobedience
has been alleged failing which the matter was directed to be posted for
framing of charge. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present
appeal.

3. It may be necessary to briefly outline the relevant facts on the
basis of which the allegations of commission of contempt have been made and
the conclusions, indicated above, have been reached by the High Court.

445 daily rated employees of the State serving in different
departments, including the 74 respondents herein, had instituted W.P. Nos.
39117-176/1999 claiming regularization of service. By order dated
15.12.1999, the High Court following an earlier order dated 10.9.1999
passed in similar writ petitions i.e. W.P. Nos. 33541-571/98 etc. had
granted the relief(s) claimed by the writ petitioners-respondents. The
aforesaid order dated 15.12.1999 of the learned Single Judge was affirmed
by order dated 24.01.2001 passed in the writ appeals filed by the State.
The petitions filed by the State seeking special leave to appeal against
the order dated 24.01.2001 were dismissed by this Court on 22.07.2005. Two
significant facts need to be noted at this stage. Firstly, that the order
dated 10.09.1999 passed in writ petition Nos. 33541-571/1998 which was
followed by the High Court while deciding the writ petitions (Writ Petition
Nos. 39117-176/1999) filed by the respondents had been implemented by the
State Government by granting regularization to the petitioners therein.
The second significant fact that would require to be noticed is that
following the dismissal of the special leave petitions filed by the State
by order dated 22.07.2005, a Scheme dated 29.12.2005 was framed by the
State Government to implement the order dated 15.12.1999 passed in the writ
petitions (W.P. Nos. 39117-176/1999). 161 persons who had filed contempt
proceedings for non-compliance of the order dated 15.12.1999 were
regularized on 29.12.2005. Thereafter, on 8.3.2006, 64 other persons, who
were similarly placed to the aforesaid 161 persons as well as to the
present 74 respondents, were also regularized. Such regularization was
made without the concerned persons having to initiate any contempt
proceeding. The cases of the other petitioners in W.P. Nos.39117-76/1999
were, however, not considered.

4. Consequently, 129 employees, including the 74 respondents herein
whose case were not being considered by the State instituted another
contempt proceeding being CCC No.67/2006. By Government Order dated
18.04.2006, 55 out of the aforesaid 129 employees were regularized while
the claim of the remaining 74 employees (respondents herein) were not
responded to. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition (CCC No. 67/2006) was
heard and closed by the High Court by its order dated 20.06.2006 granting
the respondents “eight weeks’ time to pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law on the claim made by the complainants for regularization of their
services in the office of the respondent authorities ……” As no action was
initiated pursuant to the aforesaid order of the High Court, the present
contempt petition i.e. CCC No. 669/2006 was lodged by the 74 respondents.
During the pendency of the aforesaid contempt petition the claim of
regularization of respondents was rejected by specific orders passed on the
ground that the claimants do not fulfill the conditions for regularization
as laid down by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs.
Umadevi (3) and Others[1]. Some of the said orders/endorsements were
illustratively brought on record which demonstrate that the stand of the
authorities with regard to the 74 respondents herein is that none of them
fulfill/satisfy the conditions enumerated in paragraph 53 of the judgment
in Umadevi (supra) as essential for the purpose of regularization. On a
detailed consideration of the facts of the case, particularly, the fact
that the writ petitions as well as the writ appeals arising therefrom as
also the order of this Court dated 22.07.2005 dismissing the special leave
petitions filed by the State were prior in point of time to the decision of
this Court in Umadevi (supra) [decided on 10.04.2006], the High Court took
the view, as already noted, in its order dated 26.03.2007 which has given
rise to the present appeal.

5. We have heard Shri K.N. Bhat, learned senior counsel for the
appellants and Shri Guru Krishna Kumar, learned senior counsel for the
respondents.

6. Shri Bhat, learned senior counsel for the appellants has drawn the
attention of the Court to the fact that regularization in terms of the
initial order of the High Court dated 10.09.1999 passed in W.P. Nos. 33541-
571/1999 as well as regularization in part i.e. 161, 64 and 55 number of
employees out of the 445 petitioners who had instituted writ petition Nos.
39117-176/1999, were prior to the judgment of this Court in Umadevi
(supra). Shri Bhat has submitted that in terms of the directions in
Umadevi (supra) while regularizations already made are not to be re-opened,
matters subjudice are to be governed by the conditions mentioned in Umadevi
(supra) and only on existence thereof regularization could be made.
According to the learned counsel as none of the respondents herein satisfy
the said conditions the impugned refusals to regularize the service of the
respondents have been made by the authorities of the State.

7. On the other hand, Shri Guru Krishna Kumar, learned senior counsel
for the respondents, has submitted that the writ petitions as well as the
writ appeals and the special leave petitions filed in connection with the
regularization of the respondents stood concluded on 15.12.1999, 24.01.2001
and 22.07.2005 respectively, all of which dates are prior to the decision
in Umadevi (supra). It is contended that as all the proceedings concerning
the regularization of the respondents had attained finality prior to the
decision of this Court in Umadevi (supra) the regularization of the
respondents cannot be understood to be sub-judice. Learned counsel has
further urged that 161, 64 and 55 number of persons from the batch of 445
writ petitioners who are identically placed as the respondents have been
regularized. In fact, according to learned counsel, the batch of 55
employees have been regularized on 18.04.2006 i.e. after 10.04.2006 (the
date of decision in Umadevi (supra)). Learned counsel has also submitted
that during the pendency of the present proceeding as many as 7 other
persons, out of the batch of 445 writ petitioners, have also been
regularized. It is accordingly submitted that in such circumstances on the
principle of parity itself the entitlement of the respondents to be
regularized cannot be doubted or disputed. The appellants, therefore, are
clearly guilty of contempt and the impugned order of the High Court does
not warrant any interference.

8. It is not in dispute that the original batch of employees who had
filed writ petition Nos. 33541-571/1998 on the basis of which the writ
petitions filed by the respondents herein (W.P. Nos. 39117-176/1999) were
allowed by the order dated 15.12.1999 have been regularized. It is also
not in dispute that out of the 445 employees who had filed writ petition
Nos.39117-176/1999, by separate government orders, the service of 161, 64
and 55 employees have been regularized in three batches. The records
placed before the Court would indicate that 7 other persons have been
regularized during the pendency of the present appeal. In a situation
where a Scheme had been framed on 29.12.2005 to give effect to the order of
the High Court dated 15.12.1999 passed in the writ petitions filed by the
respondents herein and many of the similarly situated persons have been
regularized pursuant thereto the action of the appellants in not granting
regularization to the present respondents cannot appear to be sound or
justified. The fact that the regularization of 55 employees, similarly
situated to the present respondents, was made on 18.04.2006 i.e. after the
decision of this Court in Umadevi (supra) is also not in serious dispute
though Shri Bhat, learned senior counsel for the appellants, has tried to
contend that the said regularizations were made prior to the decision in
Umadevi (supra). The date of the order of regularization of the 55 persons
i.e. 18.4.2006 will leave no doubt or ambiguity in the matter. In the
aforesaid undisputed facts it is wholly unnecessary for us to consider as
to whether the cases of persons who were awaiting regularization on the
date of the decision in Umadevi (supra) is required to be dealt with in
accordance with the conditions stipulated in para 53 of Umadevi (supra)
inasmuch as the claims of the respondent employees can well be decided on
principles of parity. Similarly placed employees having been regularized
by the State and in case of some of them such regularization being after
the decision in Umadevi (supra) we are of the view that the stand taken by
the appellants in refusing regularization to the respondents cannot be
countenanced. However, as the said stand of the appellants stem from their
perception and understanding of the decision in Umadevi (supra) we do not
hold them liable for contempt but make it clear that the appellants and all
the other competent authorities of the State will now be obliged and duty
bound to regularize the services of the respondents (74 in number) which
will now be done forthwith and in any case within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of this order.

9. The appeal shall stand disposed of in the above terms.
……………………………CJI.
[P. SATHASIVAM]
………………………………J.
[RANJAN GOGOI]
NEW DELHI,
MARCH 7, 2014.
———————–
[1] (2006) 4 SCC 1

———————–
9

 

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,904,298 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,870 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com