advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Sunday, March 9, 2014

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


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.