IMPORTANT POINT
Regularisation of service in the light of Uma Devi discussed.

Headnote:(a) Service Law – Regularisation – Respondents working as ad hoc Assistant Engineers for more than 10 years without intervention of Court – Entitled to protection and benefit of Uma Devi. (Para 21, 22)
       (2006) 4 SCC 1 – Followed
       (1985) 3 SCC 545 – Relied upon
       (2010) 9 SCC 247; (1996) 8 SCC 615; (2007) 11 SCC 92; (1975) 4 SCC 714 – Referred
       (b) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Division Bench of High Court deciding the matter on correct appreciation of facts and applying applicable legal principles – No interference required. (Para 23)
       (2004) 3 SCC 214; (2010) 4 SCC 358 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       The respondent-employees were initially appointed in the year 1981 in the posts of Junior Engineers in the Rural Development Department in the erstwhile State of Bihar in respect of which the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission was not required.
       They were subsequently appointed on ad-hoc temporary basis as Assistant Engineers with certain conditions on the basis of recommendation made by the BPSC against temporary posts from the date of notification.
       They have been working in the said posts for more than 29 years from the date of first appointment as Junior Engineers and 23 years from the appointment in the posts of Assistant Engineers on ad-hoc basis. Now they have been issued show cause notices as to why their services should not be terminated on the ground of their appointment to the posts as illegal/invalid.
       They prayed in the Writ Petitions to treat them equally at par with similarly situated 120 persons appointed along with them who fortuitously remained working in the territory of successor State of Bihar.
       The single Judge of the High Court dismissed their writ petitions. Aggrieved by the said judgment and orders, they filed Letters Patent Appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court.
       The State Government took a decision to terminate the services of all such engineers including the respondent-employees in these appeals and notices were issued to them and the same were stayed in the interlocutory application filed by the respondent-employees and status-quo order dated 9.9.2010 was passed as per Ann.-18 in the Writ Petition(S)No.2087 of 2010.
       The State Government rejected the representations of the respondent-employees and terminated their services vide separate but similar orders dated 24.8.2011.
       The orders of termination were questioned by the respondent–employees by filing interlocutory application in the Letters Patent Appeals questioning their propriety, correctness and legality of the orders of termination passed against them and action taken by the State Government of Jharkhand against them. The Division Bench of the High Court came to the conclusion that the claims of the respondent-employees for regularization in their posts are fit cases and they became unfortunate only because of the creation of the State of Jharkhand over which the employees had no control and could not have prevented creation of the State of Jharkhand and because of that reason only, one State cannot take a different stand with respect to the employees appointed by same process. The State Government cannot throw the employees jobless after 30 years of their continuous service in public employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution, which would result in great injustice since their source of income will be taken away and thereby the employees and their families will suffer due to the arbitrary action of the State Government of Jharkhand which deprived a person of life and liberty guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
       The Division Bench has accepted the case of the respondent-employees and allowed their letters patent appeals by setting aside the judgment and order dated 25.7.2011 of the learned single Judge.
       In the Letters Patent Appeals on 13.9.2011, an interim order was passed directing the State Government of Jharkhand to maintain status quo that is, to allow the respondent-employees to work in the posts by it. The court also set aside the orders of termination by allowing the interlocutory application and also quashed the show cause notices and further held that the respondent-employees are entitled to the consequential benefits.
       Finding of the Court:
       High Court was legally correct in extending the benefits of Uma Devi’s case to the respondent-employees.
       Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. –

Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

2. These Civil Appeals are filed by the appellant-State of Jharkhand questioning the legality of the impugned judgment and order dated 08.11.2011 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in Letters Patent Appeal No. 256 of 2011 and connected cases which allowed the appeals of the respondent-writ petitioners by setting aside the judgment dated 25.07.2011 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the writ petitions of the respondent-employees were dismissed and the Interlocutory Application No. 3223 of 2011 was allowed after quashing the show cause notices issued and orders of termination of services of the respondent-employees. The Division Bench of the High Court by framing certain substantial questions of law has held that the respondents herein shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits. The appellants being aggrieved of the impugned judgment and orders have filed these Civil Appeals by urging various facts and legal grounds in support of the same and prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and orders by allowing the Civil Appeals.

3. Certain relevant facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties with a view to examine the correctness of the findings and reasons recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment and further to find out as to whether the impugned judgment and orders warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in these Civil Appeals.

4. The respondent-employees (the writ petitioners before the High Court), were initially appointed in the year 1981 in the posts of Junior Engineers in the Rural Development Department in the erstwhile State of Bihar in respect of which the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission (for short “the BPSC”) was not required. It is the case of the respondent-employees that they have continuously discharged their duties in the above posts honestly and diligently to the satisfaction of their employer. They were subsequently appointed on ad-hoc temporary basis as Assistant Engineers in the pay-scales of [pic]1000-50-1700 P.Ro-10-1820/-, with certain conditions on the basis of recommendation made by the BPSC against temporary posts from the date of notification. Their services as Assistant Engineers on ad-hoc basis were entrusted to work in the Road Construction Department where they were required to contribute their work within the stipulated period. The relevant condition No. 2 in the said notification No. Work/G/1-402/87,248/(S) Patna dated 27.6.1987 is extracted hereunder:-

“1. XXX XXX XXX

2. This ad-hoc appointment shall be dependent on approval of Bihar Public Service Commission.

3. XXX XXX XXX ……”

It is their further case that they have been working in the said posts for more than 29 years from the date of first appointment as Junior Engineers and 23 years from the appointment in the posts of Assistant Engineers on ad-hoc basis. Neither the BPSC nor Bihar State Government nor Jharkhand State Government had intention to dispense with the services of these employees. Therefore, they did not take steps to dispense with their services from their posts. The employees approached the High Court when they were issued the show cause notices dated 20.4.2010 by the appellant No.3. After taking substantial work from the respondent-employees they have been harassed by issuing show cause notices asking them to show cause as to why their services should not be terminated on the ground of their appointment to the posts as illegal/invalid. Their appointments were, however, not held to be invalid either by the orders of the High Court or Supreme Court in spite of the fact that 199 posts filled up by advertisement No.128/1996 issued by the BPSC dated 2.9.1996 as the same would not affect the r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 336

IMPORTANT POINTRegularisation of service in the light of Uma Devi discussed.

Cases Referred (9)

IMPORTANT POINT
Regularisation of service in the light of Uma Devi discussed.