Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 138
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.
HARIDAS – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
DIRECTOR STATE PROJECT, U.P. EDUCATION FOR ALL PROJECT (SARV SIKSHA ABHYAN), STATE PROJECT OFFICE, LUCKNOW AND ANR – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.747-748 OF 2017 [ARISING FROM SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.2208-2209/2017] [ARISING FROM S.L.P.(C).....CC. NOS. 1054-1055/2017] WITH C.A. NOS.750-751/2017 @ SLP(C) NOS.1679-1680/2017 C.A. NO.753/2017 @ SLP(C) NO.1821/2017 C.A. NOS.754-755/2017 @ SLP(C) NOS.1824-1825/2017
Decided On : 20-01-2017
Similar treatment to be provided to similarly situated employees based on previous judgment
Headnote:
Backwages - Absorption of Employees - Court directs respondents to consider appellants' cases in light of previous judgment and provide similar treatment
Fact of the Case:
The appellants claimed that they were similarly situated as the appellants in a previous case where the State Government was directed to absorb the employees of the Cement Corporation, with backwages limited to 40%
Finding of the Court:
The Court, considering the long break in service and the alleged re-employment of similarly situated employees, directed the respondents to consider the appellants' cases in the light of the previous judgment and provide similar treatment
Issues: The issue was whether the appellants, who claimed to be similarly situated as in a previous case, were entitled to similar treatment in terms of absorption and backwages
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the appellants should be considered in the light of the previous judgment and provided similar treatment if found to be similarly situated
Final Decision: The Court directed the respondents to consider the appellants' cases in the light of the previous judgment and provide similar treatment within three months
JUDGMENT
KURIAN, J.
Permission to file special leave petitions is granted in CC Nos. 1054-1055/2017.
2. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
3. In the nature of order we propose to pass in these matters it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents.
4. The appellants claim that they are similarly situated as the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.9165-9172 of 2009, which were disposed of by judgment dated 09.09.2015. This Court has taken the view that the State Government was to absorb the employees of the Cement Corporation. However, having regard to the long break in between, the Court held that the backwages would be limited to 40%. It is the case of the appellants that they are also similarly situated as the appellants in the Civil Appeal referred to above.
5. It appears that the High Court did not have the benefit of perusal of this judgment. Though, ordinarily the matters should have been remanded to the High Court, having regard to the fact that the appellants have been out of service for quite a long time and the similarly situated employees have allegedly been taken back, we are of the view that these appeals can be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the appellants also in the light of the judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.9165-9172 of 2009 and in case the appellants herein are also similarly situated as the appellants therein, similar treatment shall be given to the appellants herein as well. We order accordingly.
6. The needful be done within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the civil appeals referred to above.
7. We make it clear that the impugned judgments shall not stand in the way of the respondents considering the case of the appellants in the light of the judgment of this Court, referred to above, and taking appropriate action within the time stipulated above. We further make it clear that we have not expressed anything on the merits of the case.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
9. There shall be no orders as to costs.
