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]
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]
