Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.
SHAKTI PRASAD BHATT ETC.ETC. – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.ETC. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 4519-4530 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 33729-33740 of 2017)
Decided On : 26-04-2018
(2001) 4 SCC 78 – Relied upon
Facts off the case:
The erstwhile State of U.P. was bifurcated and U.P. Re-Organisation Act carved the State of Uttrakhand out with effect from 9.11.2000. Many Kurk Amins including appellants were allocated to the State of Uttrakhand and were absorbed in the Government service of Uttrakhand.
Kurk Amins filed writ application to seek relief with effect from 16.11.1985 calaiming on the basis of the Supreme Court decision earlier in the matter. This writ petition was allowed.
The Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the single Bench decision but observed that the petitioners would be entitled to the consequential benefits with effect from 9th November 2000 and not with effect from 16th November 1985.
A fresh Writ Petition was filed by the State of Uttrakhand Sahakari Sangarh Kurk Amin Parishad, which was allowed in the light of the decision in Chandra Prakash Pandey’s case.
The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order reversed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
Reorganisation of State and allocation of employee to carved out State cannot wipe off past services.
Result: Appeal allowed with cost.
JUDGMENT
Leave granted.
2. Application for Intervention/impleadment is allowed.
3. The order passed on 11.04.2017 by the Single Bench of the High Court of Uttrakhand at Nainital in W.P. No.2372 of 2015 filed by Uttarakhand Sahakari Sangarh Kurk Amin Parishad, of granting benefit of past services for the purpose of selection grade, promotional scale and post-retiral benefits including pension etc. from due date, has been set aside by the Division Bench, the Single Bench has granted the following relief:
“Accordingly, the present petitions are disposed of in terms of the judgment cited hereinabove. The respondents are directed to grant the ACP to the petitioners and to count the past services of the petitioners for the purpose of selection grade, promotional scale and postretiral benefits including pension etc. from due date within a period of ten weeks from today.”
4. The facts, in short, indicate that in the year 1978 onwards pursuant to the scheme of UP Government Kurk Amins were appointed for realising outstanding dues of the cooperative societies. Their appointment, salary, service conditions were governed under the scheme. The Government’s earlier decision to pay them on salary basis was withdrawn and they were asked to work on commission basis. Since Kurk Amins did not agree to work on commission basis, their services were dispensed with.
5. In the year 1980, the Kurk Amins filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad whose services were terminated or who did not agree to be paid on commission basis.
6. On 16.11.1985, the High Court of Allahabad quashed the order of termination and granted relief by holding that Kurk Amins were Government servants holding civil posts and hence are entitled to be treated in the same way as others in the services of Government of U.P.
7. In the year 1995 one Chandra Prakash Pandey filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the State Government to place him and others in the regular pay scale, which were being paid to Kurk Amins of Revenue Department.
8. The Single Bench of the High Court allowed the prayer as contained in the writ petition. Against which, a Special appeal was preferred before the Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench on 5.5.1995 affirmed the judgment passed by the Single Bench.
9. In the year 1996, the U.P. Sahakari Sangarsh Karamchari Sangh filed another Writ Petition. The Division Bench of High Court following the decision rendered in CMWP No.738 of 1980 held that the principle laid down in the aforesaid case also applied to the case of Kurk Amins appointed on the commission basis as they both stood on the same footing. The said decision was challenged before this Court. This Court remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the High Court.
10. The High Court vide judgment and order dated 22.3.1996 held that Kurk Amins appointed on commission basis were to be treated at par with the Kurk Amins appointed on regular basis.
11. Against the above order Special appeal was preferred before the High Court and the Division Bench on 4.4.1997 affirmed the said decision.
12. The decision of the Single Bench dated 22.3.1996 and the Division Bench dated 4.4.1997 were questioned by filing an appeal in this Court. This court decided the matter in State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey & Ors [2001(4) SCC 78], of which relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
“4. Thereafter one Chandra Prakash Pandey and others, who are respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. 846768 of 1995, filed a writ application before the High Court for a direction to the State to pay regular scale to them as was payable to Kurk Amins of the Revenue Department. The learned Single Judge of the High Court following the judgment rendered by the Division Bench on 16.11.1985 in CMWP No. 738/1980 referred to above allowed the writ application and directed to pay salary and regular scale of pay to the writ petitioners against which order Special Appeal was preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh
SupremeToday
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
