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

Friday, July 25, 2014

Service matter - Regularization of Unpaid revenue clerks - candidates who were engaged to work on payment of fees were popularly known as “unpaid candidates’- kept in the waiting list, were called upon to work on payment of nominal fees under the control of different departments like revenue Department, Settlement Commissioner, Land Records Department, city survey office, etc. -The Tribunal by its judgment dated 20th December, 1992 allowed the application directing the respondents to absorb unpaid candidates, who had put in more than ten years of service as such, by giving preference and by relaxation of age, if they otherwise fulfill other eligibility criteria. - challenged in appeal - Meanwhile, services of certain unpaid candidates were terminated by the respondents. The appellant’s service was also terminated by order dated 20th April, 1998.- Appeal allowed - set aside their respective orders of termination with direction to the respondents to take action for regularisation of services of all the applicants including the appellant herein in accordance with GR dated 10th March, 2005. It was directed to pass appropriate orders within three months - Division Bench set aside the orders - Apex court held that The respondents are directed to comply with the order and directions passed by the Tribunal on 24th November, 2011 in OA No. 293/1998 and regularize the services of the appellant with retrospective effect within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid direction and observation. No costs.= SANDHYA … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 - July. part - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41720

Service matter - Regularization of Unpaid revenue clerks - candidates who  were
engaged to  work  on  payment  of  fees  were  popularly  known  as  “unpaid candidates’- kept in the waiting  list,   were called upon to work on  payment  of  nominal  fees   under  the  control  of
different departments  like  revenue  Department,  Settlement  Commissioner,
Land Records Department, city survey office, etc. -The Tribunal by its judgment dated 20th  December,  1992  allowed the application directing  the respondents to absorb unpaid candidates,  who had put in more than ten years of service as such, by giving preference  and
by relaxation of age, if they otherwise fulfill other eligibility criteria. - challenged in appeal - Meanwhile, services of certain unpaid candidates  were  terminated  by the respondents.  The appellant’s  service  was  also  terminated  by  order dated 20th April, 1998.- Appeal allowed - set  aside their respective orders of termination with direction to the respondents  to take action for regularisation of services  of all the applicants  including the appellant herein in accordance with GR dated 10th March,  2005.  It  was directed to pass appropriate orders within three months - Division Bench set aside the orders - Apex court held that The respondents are directed to comply  with the order and directions passed by the Tribunal on 24th  November,  2011  in OA  No.  293/1998  and  regularize  the  services  of  the  appellant   with retrospective effect within two months from the date of receipt of  copy  of this judgment. The appeal  is  allowed  with  the  aforesaid  direction  and observation. No costs.=

The Government of Maharashtra vide GR dated  30th  June,  1961  framed
recruitment  rules  of  revenue   clerks   from   amongst   persons   having
qualification S.S.C. and within the age limit of 23  years  (relaxable  upto
26 years for reserved category candidates). Selected candidates were  to  be
appointed in their office to work against clerical post.   Those  who  could
not be adjusted against the post  but were kept in the waiting  list,   were
called upon to work on  payment  of  nominal  fees   under  the  control  of
different departments  like  revenue  Department,  Settlement  Commissioner,
Land Records Department, city survey office, etc. Those candidates who  were
engaged to  work  on  payment  of  fees  were  popularly  known  as  “unpaid
candidates’.
Their  payments  are  being  made  out  of  copying  fees  received  by  the
department, 70% of which was  for  payment  of  wages  to  the  said  unpaid
candidates and 30% share was credited to the Government.
4.    The applications were called for appointment to  Clerical  posts.  The
appellant and others were  declared  successful.   Those  whose  names  were
appearing in the main selection list were  appointed  against  the  Clerical
post. Rest in the waiting list were allowed to work  as  unpaid  candidates.
Since 4th July, 1985, the appellant is working as unpaid  candidate  in  the
City Survey Office at Dhule, Maharasthra.=
The Secretary of Bhumi Abhilekh Bina Vetan Sangthana (Union of  Unpaid
Candidates  belonging  to  Land  Records  Department)  filed   an   Original
Application No.153 of 1991 before the Maharashtra  Administrative  Tribunal,
Mumbai.   They  prayed  for  direction  on  the  respondents   for   regular
absorption of  its  members  i.e.  unpaid  candidates  against  the  regular
vacancies. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 20th  December,  1992  allowed
the application directing  the respondents to absorb unpaid candidates,  who
had put in more than ten years of service as such, by giving preference  and
by relaxation of age, if they otherwise fulfill other eligibility criteria.=
 The aforesaid judgment was challenged by those unpaid candidates,  who
were appointed on and after 13th  February,  1987,  in  view  of  denial  of
relief given by the Division Bench of the  Bombay  High  Court.   The  Civil
Appeals preferred by those unpaid candidates were allowed  by  this  Court's
order dated 11th August, 2011 directing the respondents to take  action  for
regularization of services of the appellants in  accordance  with  GR  dated
10th March, 2005.
11.   Meanwhile, services of certain unpaid candidates  were  terminated  by
the respondents.  The appellant’s  service  was  also  terminated  by  order
dated 20th April, 1998.
12.   The  appellant  and  others  challenged  their  respective  orders  of
termination before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench  at
Aurangabad and prayed for directions on respondents  for  regularisation  of
their services.
13.   After hearing the parties,  the Tribunal by its common judgment  dated
24th November, 2011 passed in Original Application No.202/1998 (Smt.  Rajani
vs.  Government  of  Maharashtra  etc.),  including   Original   Application
No.293/1998 preferred by the appellant, allowed the applications, set  aside
their respective orders of termination with direction to the respondents  to
take action for regularisation of services  of all the applicants  including
the appellant herein in accordance with GR dated 10th March,  2005.  It  was
directed to pass appropriate orders within three months.=
The order of termination dated 20th April, 1998 was set aside by  the
Tribunal by its order dated 24th November, 2011.  The Tribunal directed  the
respondents to consider the case of appellant for  regularization  in  terms
of Government Resolution dated 10th March, 2005.  The order  of  termination
being set aside, in the eye of law the  appellant  shall  be  deemed  to  be
continued in service even on 10th March,   2005   i.e.  the  date  when  the
Government Resolution was issued.  Such  being  the  position  of  law,  the
appellant is entitled  for  regularization.  But  the  High  Court  was  not
correct in  holding that the appellant was not in  service  on  10th  March,
2005  and wrongly rejected her claim for regularization.
19.   For the reason aforesaid, the impugned judgment  passed  by  the  High
Court cannot be upheld. The impugned judgment dated 15th March, 2013  passed
by the High Court is set aside. The respondents are directed to comply  with
the order and directions passed by the Tribunal on 24th  November,  2011  in
OA  No.  293/1998  and  regularize  the  services  of  the  appellant   with
retrospective effect within two months from the date of receipt of  copy  of
this judgment. The appeal  is  allowed  with  the  aforesaid  direction  and
observation. No costs.

2014 - July. part - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41720
                                                                  REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   CIVIL APPEAL NO.               OF 2014
                    (arising out of SLP©No.24083 of 2013)

SANDHYA                                             … APPELLANT

                                   VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.                   … RESPONDENTS


                               J U D G M E N T


Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

      Leave granted.
2.    This appeal is directed against the  judgment  and  order  dated  15th
March, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature  of
Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.1047  of  2013  whereby  the
High Court held that the appellant is not  entitled  for  regularization  of
her service  as  per  Government  Resolution  dated  10th  March,  2005  and
dismissed the writ petition.
3.    The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
      The Government of Maharashtra vide GR dated  30th  June,  1961  framed
recruitment  rules  of  revenue   clerks   from   amongst   persons   having
qualification S.S.C. and within the age limit of 23  years  (relaxable  upto
26 years for reserved category candidates). Selected candidates were  to  be
appointed in their office to work against clerical post.   Those  who  could
not be adjusted against the post  but were kept in the waiting  list,   were
called upon to work on  payment  of  nominal  fees   under  the  control  of
different departments  like  revenue  Department,  Settlement  Commissioner,
Land Records Department, city survey office, etc. Those candidates who  were
engaged to  work  on  payment  of  fees  were  popularly  known  as  “unpaid
candidates’.
Their  payments  are  being  made  out  of  copying  fees  received  by  the
department, 70% of which was  for  payment  of  wages  to  the  said  unpaid
candidates and 30% share was credited to the Government.
4.    The applications were called for appointment to  Clerical  posts.  The
appellant and others were  declared  successful.   Those  whose  names  were
appearing in the main selection list were  appointed  against  the  Clerical
post. Rest in the waiting list were allowed to work  as  unpaid  candidates.
Since 4th July, 1985, the appellant is working as unpaid  candidate  in  the
City Survey Office at Dhule, Maharasthra.
5.    The Secretary of Bhumi Abhilekh Bina Vetan Sangthana (Union of  Unpaid
Candidates  belonging  to  Land  Records  Department)  filed   an   Original
Application No.153 of 1991 before the Maharashtra  Administrative  Tribunal,
Mumbai.   They  prayed  for  direction  on  the  respondents   for   regular
absorption of  its  members  i.e.  unpaid  candidates  against  the  regular
vacancies. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 20th  December,  1992  allowed
the application directing  the respondents to absorb unpaid candidates,  who
had put in more than ten years of service as such, by giving preference  and
by relaxation of age, if they otherwise fulfill other eligibility criteria.
6.    The said judgment was challenged by the State Government  before  this
Court and the SLP was dismissed on 14th July, 1995. Consequently, the  State
Government issued G.R. dated 21st October, 1995, for implementation  of  the
directions of the Tribunal in Original Application No.153 of 1991.
7.    The other candidates of revenue department thereafter  approached  the
Tribunal at Aurangabad by filing Original Application No.895 of  1995.   The
said application was also decided in their favour  by  judgment  dated  30th
November, 1995. The Tribunal  directed  the  State  Government  to  frame  a
scheme as envisaged in its earlier judgment dated 20th  December,  1992  for
absorption of unpaid candidates. In order  to  comply  with  the  directions
issued by  the  Tribunal,  the  State  Government  issued  G.R.  dated  22nd
October, 1996 for absorption of unpaid candidates in the revenue  department
and fixed 30th November, 1995  as  the  cutoff  date.  Consequently,  unpaid
candidates who had completed 10 years of service as  such,  became  eligible
for absorption, subject to the satisfaction of other  conditions  prescribed
in the said GR.
8.    In Writ Petition No.2150 of 1998, the Division  Bench  of  the  Bombay
High Court passed an order on 16th October, 2002 directing the State to  pay
a minimum salary  of  Rs.3,200/-  per  month  to    the  unpaid  candidates.
Pursuant to the said direction, the benefit of minimum salary of  Rs.3,200/-
was given by the State Government to all  unpaid candidates.
9.    Subsequently, a group of writ petitions were also  disposed  of  by  a
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Shivshankar  Gundu  Jawanlal  and
another vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2007 (3) Mh.L.J.  43.   In  the
said case, the petitioners were seeking a common relief for  being  absorbed
as permanent Class III employees of the State Government with  retrospective
effect in the light of  judgment of the  Tribunal  in  Original  Application
No.153 of 1991 and  GRs dated 21st October, 1995,  22nd  October,  1996  and
10th March, 2005.  A group of writ petitions were disposed of by the  Bombay
High Court with observation that all the unpaid  candidates  appointed  till
12th February, 1987 cannot be termed as backdoor entrants and declared  that
they are eligible for  the  scheme  formulated  under  the  GRs  dated  21st
October, 1995 and 22nd October, 1996. The High Court also held  that  unpaid
candidates  appointed from 13th February, 1987 onwards are not entitled  for
the benefit of  any of the GRs dated 21st October, 1995, 22nd October,  1996
and 10th March, 2005.
10.   The aforesaid judgment was challenged by those unpaid candidates,  who
were appointed on and after 13th  February,  1987,  in  view  of  denial  of
relief given by the Division Bench of the  Bombay  High  Court.   The  Civil
Appeals preferred by those unpaid candidates were allowed  by  this  Court's
order dated 11th August, 2011 directing the respondents to take  action  for
regularization of services of the appellants in  accordance  with  GR  dated
10th March, 2005.
11.   Meanwhile, services of certain unpaid candidates  were  terminated  by
the respondents.  The appellant’s  service  was  also  terminated  by  order
dated 20th April, 1998.
12.   The  appellant  and  others  challenged  their  respective  orders  of
termination before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench  at
Aurangabad and prayed for directions on respondents  for  regularisation  of
their services.
13.   After hearing the parties,  the Tribunal by its common judgment  dated
24th November, 2011 passed in Original Application No.202/1998 (Smt.  Rajani
vs.  Government  of  Maharashtra  etc.),  including   Original   Application
No.293/1998 preferred by the appellant, allowed the applications, set  aside
their respective orders of termination with direction to the respondents  to
take action for regularisation of services  of all the applicants  including
the appellant herein in accordance with GR dated 10th March,  2005.  It  was
directed to pass appropriate orders within three months.
14.   Thereafter, respondent no. 3 vide his letter dated 7th  August,  2012,
intimated the appellant that her service cannot be  regularized  because  of
non-fulfillment of  condition  in   GR  dated  10th  March,  2005.   It  was
alleged that the appellant was not working on the date  when  GR  came  into
force.
15. The appellant being aggrieved, filed a  contempt  petition  in  Original
Application No.  292/1998.  The  same  was  rejected  by  order  dated  18th
December, 2012. The order passed by  the  Tribunal  was  challenged  by  the
appellant before the High Court in writ petition no. 1047  of  2013.   After
hearing the parties, the High  Court  rejected  the  writ  petition  on  the
ground that the appellant did not  fulfill  the  requirement  as  laid  down
under GR dated 10th March, 2005.
16.   In the said writ petition, the respondents took a similar plea  before
the High Court that the appellant did not attend the office since 8th  July,
2002. She ceased to be in employment since then. It was  contended  that  on
the date of issuance of Government Resolution dated 10th March, 2005,  since
the  appellant  was  not  in  employment  the  benefits  as  per  Government
Resolution cannot be extended in her favour.  The  Division  Bench  accepted
the said plea and upheld the order passed by the Tribunal.
17.         Learned counsel for the appellant  rightly  contended  that  the
High Court has misguided itself by holding that the  appellant  was  not  in
service since July, 2002 and was not  working  on  the  date  of  Government
Resolution dated 10th March, 2005.
18.    The order of termination dated 20th April, 1998 was set aside by  the
Tribunal by its order dated 24th November, 2011.  The Tribunal directed  the
respondents to consider the case of appellant for  regularization  in  terms
of Government Resolution dated 10th March, 2005.  The order  of  termination
being set aside, in the eye of law the  appellant  shall  be  deemed  to  be
continued in service even on 10th March,   2005   i.e.  the  date  when  the
Government Resolution was issued.  Such  being  the  position  of  law,  the
appellant is entitled  for  regularization.  But  the  High  Court  was  not
correct in  holding that the appellant was not in  service  on  10th  March,
2005  and wrongly rejected her claim for regularization.
19.   For the reason aforesaid, the impugned judgment  passed  by  the  High
Court cannot be upheld. The impugned judgment dated 15th March, 2013  passed
by the High Court is set aside. The respondents are directed to comply  with
the order and directions passed by the Tribunal on 24th  November,  2011  in
OA  No.  293/1998  and  regularize  the  services  of  the  appellant   with
retrospective effect within two months from the date of receipt of  copy  of
this judgment. The appeal  is  allowed  with  the  aforesaid  direction  and
observation. No costs.

                                               …………………………………………………………………….J.
                                       (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)



                                               …………………………………………………………………….J.
                                             (DIPAK MISRA)

NEW DELHI,
JULY 01, 2014.
ITEM NO.1F               COURT NO.6                 SECTION IX

(For Judgment)



               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A

                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS



Civil Appeal No(s). 24083/2013



SANDHYA                                            Appellant(s)



                                VERSUS



STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.                        Respondent(s)





Date : 01/07/2014      This appeal was called on for pronouncement of
            Judgment today.





For Appellant(s)       Dr. Kailash Chand ,Adv.



For Respondent(s)







       Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Sudhansu  Jyoti  Mukhopadhaya  pronounced  the
reportable judgment of the Bench comprising His  Lordship  and  Hon'ble  Mr.
Justice Dipak Misra.



      The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.











(MEENAKSHI KOHLI)                               (USHA SHARMA)

  COURT MASTER                                   COURT MASTER



             [Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file]


No comments:

Post a Comment

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