1. Regularization of service — Challenge to remand order in light of prior judicial directions and government guidelines. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 20
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.Venkataswami : J.Jagannadha Rao
Rambabu
Versus
Secy.To Govt.Fin.And Planning Deptt.
Case No. : 82 , 83 of 1999
Date of Decision : 1/11/99
Regularisation of services is subject to the satisfaction of conditions specified in the relevant government order. Where a lower court's order already conforms to the higher court's directions, a remand of the matter is unsustainable.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Regularisation of services - G.O. Ms. No. 212 dated 22/4/1994 - Order of the single judge found to be in conformity with the directions of the apex court - Remand of the matter by the division bench cannot be sustained - Regularisation is subject to the satisfaction of conditions laid down in the relevant government order. (Paras 2, 3 and 4)
Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged an order of the division bench which had remanded the matter to a single judge. It was contended that the single judge's order was already in alignment with a previous order passed by the apex court regarding the regularisation of services, except for a minor clarification.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the order of the single judge was in conformity with the previous directions of the apex court. Consequently, the order of the division bench remanding the matter was unsustainable.
Issues: Whether the order of the division bench remanding the matter to the single judge was sustainable in light of previous judicial directions and the conditions for regularisation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where a single judge's order is in conformity with the directions of the apex court, a remand by a division bench is unnecessary. Furthermore, the regularisation of services is contingent upon the satisfaction of conditions specified in the applicable government order.
Result: Order of the division bench set aside and order of the single judge upheld subject to modification.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend that a prior judicial order precludes the remand of the matter to a single judge. (Para 2 )
3. The court observed that the single judge's order conformed with prior judicial directions, subject to a minor clarification. (Para 3 )
4. Regularization of service is contingent upon the satisfaction of conditions prescribed in the relevant government order. (Para 4 )
5. Remand order set aside and single judge's order upheld, subject to satisfaction of government order conditions for regularization. (Para 4 )
6. What is the requirement for the regularization of service under government guidelines?
Regularization of service is subject to the satisfaction of the conditions laid down in the applicable government order. (Para 4 )
7. Under what circumstances can a remand order be set aside by a superior court?
A remand order may be set aside if it is found to be unsustainable in light of prior orders passed by the superior court. (Para 2 , 4 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) HEARD counsel on both sides. It is ar- gued by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that in the light of an order passed by this court in Special Leave Petition (Civ) Nos. 27275, 27277 of 1995 dated 6/2/1998. (reported in 1999 Lab IC 623 : 1998 AIR SCW 4122, the order under appeal remanding the mat- ter to the learned single Judge cannot be sus- tained.
(3) IT is further brought to our notice that the order of the learned single Judge of the High court was in conformity with the or- der passed by this court on 6/2/1998 except for a small clarification. This is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(4) IN the circumstances, we set aside the order under appeal and while upholding the order of the learned single Judge make it clear that the other conditions laid down in G. 0. Ms. No. 212dated 22/4/1994 will have to be satisfied for the purposes of regularisation. Subject to this modification, the or- der of the learned single Judge stands and the order of the division bench is set aside. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
