Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
Prem Ram – Appellant
Vs.
Managing Director, Uttarakhand Pey Jal & Nirman Nigam, Dehradun and Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4474 OF 2015 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) No.837 of 2012)
Decided On : 15-05-2015
(b) Service law – Regularisation – Appellant daily wager employee – Persons junior to him classified as work-charged regularized – Both class of employees on same footing – Appellant not regularized on ground of having been terminated – Termination was held illegal and set aside – Appellant already completing more than 10 years service before Umadevi (3) – Appellant entitled to regularisation from the date his juniors were regularized – Appellant held entitled to all consequential retiral benefit but not to arrears of salary. (Para 9)
(2006) 4 SCC 1 – Referred
Facts of the case:
The appellant was appointed as a daily-wager in the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh Pey Jal & Nirman Nigam sometime in the year 1988. His services were terminated in February 1997.
The termination was set aside by Labour court with a direction to the respondent to reinstate the appellant with 50% back wages and continuity of service. High Court partly allowed the appeal of the Nigam setting aside the direction for back wages. Pursuant to the award, the appellant was allowed to rejoin as a daily-wager and served till the date of his superannuation upon completion of 60 years of age.
In the year 2008, the appellant filed Writ Petition for regularisation of his services w.e.f. 1st July, 2003 on the post of Jeep Driver and to release consequential benefits in his favour including arrears due to him.
The Single Judge Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition but allowed the appellant to move a representation before the concerned authorities in the light of paragraph 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3) case.
The Special Appeal filed by appellant has been dismissed by the Division Bench.
Finding of the Court:
Appellant is entitled to regularisation from the date his juniors were regularised.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 30th June, 2011 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nanital whereby Special Appeal No.128 of 2011 filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge of that Court in Writ Petition 324(MS) of 2004 affirmed.
3. The appellant, it appears, was appointed as a daily-wager in the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh Pey Jal & Nirman Nigam sometime in the year 1988. Nine years later his services were terminated in February 1997. The termination, when assailed by the appellant before the Labour Court, was set aside with a direction to the respondent to reinstate the appellant with 50% back wages and continuity of service. The writ petition filed by the respondent-Jal Nigam who is the successor-in interest of the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh Pey Jal Nigam against the award made by the Labour Court succeeded only in part and to the extent that the award of back wages was deleted from the award by the Labour Court. It is common ground that pursuant to the award, the appellant was allowed to rejoin as a daily-wager and to serve the respondent-Jal Nigam till the date of his superannuation upon completion of 60 years of age.
4. In the year 2008, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.1116 of 2008 before the High Court for a mandamus directing respondents to regularise his services w.e.f. 1st July, 2003 on the post of Jeep Driver and to release consequential benefits in his favour including arrears due to him. The appellant’s case in the writ petition was that other daily-wagers who were junior to him and appointed after the year 1988 having been regularized in service, the appellant could not merely because of an illegal order of termination of his services be deprived of that benefit. The appellant contended that the termination order having been set aside by the Labour Court which order was affirmed by the High Court with continuity of his service, there was no reason for denial of benefits that would have flowed to him but for the order of termination especially when such benefits were extended to other similarly situate contemporaries and juniors of the appellant.
5. The writ petition coming before the Single Judge Bench of the High Court at Uttarakhand was dismissed by an order dated 23rd May, 2011 on the authority of the decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1. The High Court at the same time allowed the appellant to move a representation before the concerned authorities in the light of paragraph 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3) case (supra). The High Court observed that if there is a scheme of regularization the claim of the appellant should also be considered in accordance therewith.
6. Dissatisfied with the above order, the appellant preferred Special Appeal No.128 of 2011 which, as noticed earlier, has been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court held that since there was no scheme for regularization of daily-wagers and those named by the appellant in the writ petition had been regularized by the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam at a time when Uttarakhand Pey Jal and Nirman Nigam was not in existence, nothing further could be done in the matter nor any relief granted to the appellant. The present appeal assails the correctness of the said two judgments and orders of the High Court.
7. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 8th July, 2013, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation was granted time to take instructions whether any scheme within the contemplation of para 53 of Umadevi (3) case (supra) had been formulated by the respondent-Corporation and in case no such scheme has been formulated, whether the Corporation is willing to formulate one. The matter again came up for hearing on th November, 2013. It was argued by Ms. Rachana Srivastava, counsel appearing for the respondent-Uttarakhand Pey Jal & Nirman Nigam that while
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
