Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(SC) 1108

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. Chelameswar, Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
Sachivalaya Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Union, Jaipur - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & others - Respondents
C.A. No. 7260 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 3159 of 2015)
With
Chote Lal & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan & others - Respondents
C.A. Nos. 7261-7262 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 3778-3779 of 2015).
Decided On : 03-08-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Mr. Abhishek Gupta
For the Respondents: Mr. Milind Kumar

The settlement recorded by the High Court was held to be enforceable, and the appellant union members were entitled to weightage for their past service, as agreed upon by the first respondent.

Headnote:
Regularisation - Class IV Employees - Civil Writ Petition No.4261/1999 - Settlement recorded by High Court - Weightage for past service - Enforcement of settlement - Special Appeal No.1545/2014 - Judgment dated 27.11.2014 - C.A. No. 7260/2016 @ SLP(C) No. 3159/2015
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a Union of 'Class IV employees', sought regularisation of service for its members who were attending to menial works in the Secretariat of the State of Rajasthan. The dispute was settled out of court and the terms of settlement were reduced to writing. The first respondent later issued advertisements for the supply of 'Class IV employees', leading to litigation and interim orders.
Finding of the Court:

The Single Judge directed the first respondent to declare the result of the recruitment process and give appropriate bonus marks to the appellant union members. However, the Division Bench set aside the direction, stating that the settlement recorded by the High Court could not be enforced. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the first respondent to conclude the recruitment process and announce the results, while affirming the entitlement of the appellant union members to weightage for past service.
Issues: Enforcement of settlement recorded by High Court, entitlement to weightage for past service, regularisation of service, and validity of recruitment process.
Ratio Decidendi: The settlement recorded by the High Court in its order dated 28.1.2003 was held to be enforceable, and the appellant union members were entitled to weightage for their past service. The Division Bench's interference with the direction given by the Single Judge was found to be in error, and the recruitment process was to be concluded with the announcement of results.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the first respondent was directed to conclude the recruitment process and announce the results, while affirming the entitlement of the appellant union members to weightage for past service. The impugned order of the High Court was set aside.

ORDER :

C.A. No. 7260/2016 @ SLP(C) No. 3159/2015

Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.11.2014 of the High Court of Rajasthan in Special Appeal No.1545/2014, the sole respondent therein preferred the instant appeal.

3. The appellant is a Union of employees who are described as “Class IV employees”.

4. It is the case of the appellant that the members of the appellant Union have been attending to various menial works in the Secretariat of the State of Rajasthan. The first respondent has been resorting to the employment of members of the appellant Union through contractors (at least from the year 1998).

5. The appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No.4261/1999 seeking regularisation of service of its members. When the said writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court, it was represented that the dispute had been settled out of court and the terms of settlement were reduced to writing. In the light of said settlement, the High Court in its order dated 28.1.2003 in Civil Writ Petition No.4261/1999 directed as follows:

“(1) As per condition No.4 of the conditions of Tender, it would be imcumbent upon the contractor (New Contractor) to continue with the services of the existing employees (petitioners) upon the award of the contract to him subject to their being verified and subject also to verification of their suitability.
(2) In the event of the Government making regular selections for the vacant posts of Farrash/Sweeper/Class IV/Helper etc. the petitioners shall be given weightage as well as relaxation in the eligibility condition keeping in view their long duration of past services-subject to their satisfactory performance.
(3) Subject to the giving of weightage and relaxation in the eligibility condition, the petitioners will have to compete with others, in case, the Government intends to make regular selections on the vacant posts of Farrash/Sweeper/Class IV/Helper etc. and
(4) In case, the petitioners make applications or file representation before the Government requesting it to grant benefit of Circular No.F.1(5) FD/Rules/2002 dated 13.01.2003 to them the same shall be considered by the Government within a reasonable period of time. Any decision taken by the Government on the applications or representations of the petitioners shall be binding on the contractor(s).
Both the parties have agreed to the passing of the aforesaid directions.”

6. On 8.4.2004, the first respondent issued an advertisement inviting tender from contractors for the supply of 'Class IV employees' for the Secretariat of the first respondent. Once again the appellant Union approached the High Court by way of writ petition No.3235/2004 challenging some of the conditions of the above mentioned advertisement on the ground that those conditions were contrary to the settlement recorded by the High Court in its order dated 28.1.2003. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the High court issued certain interim orders directing the first respondent not to terminate the services of the members of the appellant Union.

7. On 15.1.2011 another advertisement was issued by the first respondent inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to 289 posts of 'Class IV employees'. It appears from the record that in the background of the above-mentioned litigation, the first respondent decided to provide some weightage in favour of the members of the appellant and other similarly situated people.

8. The members of the appellant Union were called for an interview pursuant to the above mentioned recruitment process initiated by the first respondent. In view of the long pendency of writ petition No.3235/2004 and the subsequent developments, the appellant Union filed a S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No.22845 of 2014 in the above mentioned writ petition with a prayer:

“It is, therefore, prayed that the application filed by the petitioner may be allowed and respondents may be directed to declare the result of Class-IV emp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document