Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, L. Nageswara Rao, JJ.
The State of Bihar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Baliram Singh & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10806 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7358 of 2018)
Decided On : 29-10-2018
(b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Cause of action arising in 2001, 2005 and 2007 – Writ petition filed in 2013 – Suffering from delay and laches. (Para 19)
(c) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Respondents appointed under a scheme – Terminated in 2001 – Termination order not challenged – Appointed in 2005 under a policy denying them anything for past services except consideration of the service period for pension – This policy not challenged – Again terminated and appointed afresh in 2007 – Terms and conditions of appointment in 2007 not challenged – On scheme being abolished, respondents cannot be granted back wages. (Para 19, 21)
Civil Appeal No.2433 of 2016 – Relied upon
CWJC No.1712/2002; 1996 SCC Online Pat 235 : (1996) 2 PLJR 394; CWJC No.12469 of 2002; CWJC No.18490 of 2008; CWJC No.18960 of 2008 and 18993 of 2008; WPS No.729 of 2004; (1997) 2 SCC 1 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
The respondents filed a writ petition initially praying for a direction against the appellants to make payment of salary to them for the period from 1st October, 2001 till 3rd July, 2007, along with statutory interest. By way of an amendment, a further relief was claimed to give continuity of past services to the respondents taking into account the period from 1st October, 2001 till 3rd July, 2007 for the purpose of making payment of salary to the respondents for the said period. The respondents were appointed as Adult Education Supervisors between 1981 and 1987. It is stated that 771 posts of Adult Education Supervisor were abolished in terms of the decision of the State Government after adjusting the remaining 367 supervisors who continued to work until the abolition of the posts in the year 1991.
These termination orders were challenged by the association of the respondents, namely, the Bihar State Adult and Non-Formal Education Employees Association.. That writ petition was disposed of along with connected cases
Consequently the appellants appointed the respondents in the Non-Formal Education Scheme/Adult Education Scheme
The appointment of the respondents to the post of Project Officer was a fresh appointment. The respondents accepted the said terms and conditions of appointment and none of the respondents challenged the same. The scheme, in respect of which the respondents were appointed, was abolished w.e.f. 1st April, 2001, as a result of which all of them came to be terminated. The respondents, however, neither challenged the policy decision to abolish the scheme under which the Informal Education Programme Scheme was implemented by the State Government nor their termination order. Indeed, some of the affected persons challenged their order of termination by way of writ petitions.
This appointment letter reiterated the position that the appointment/adjustment of the respondents was to be a new appointment and, on the basis of their service prior to retrenchment, benefit of seniority would not be permissible to them but it would be reckoned only for the purpose of pension. The respondents acted upon the said conditions and did not challenge the same. The writ petition, however, came to be filed only in 2013
The reliefs claimed in the writ petition were granted to the respondents by directing the appellants to pay salary for the period from 1st October, 2001 till 3rd July, 2007.
Division Bench dismissed the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
Respondents were not entitled to any relief.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 15th January, 2018 in L.P.A. No.2307 of 2016 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna whereby the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22208 of 2013 dated 22nd August, 2016 allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondents inter alia for relief of payment of salary for the period from 1st October, 2001 till 3rd July, 2007 and consequently directing the appellants to pay the amount towards salary for the said period had been upheld.
3. The respondents filed a writ petition initially praying for a direction against the appellants to make payment of salary to them for the period from 1st October, 2001 till 3rd July, 2007, along with statutory interest. By way of an amendment, a further relief was claimed to issue a writ of mandamus to the appellants to give continuity of past services to the respondents taking into account the period from 1st October, 2001 till 3rd July, 2007 for the purpose of making payment of salary to the respondents for the said period. The respondents asserted that they were appointed as Adult Education Supervisors between 1981 and 1987 pursuant to advertisements published between 1979 and 1983. It is stated that 771 posts of Adult Education Supervisor were abolished in terms of the decision of the State Government after adjusting the remaining 367 supervisors who continued to work until the abolition of the posts in the year 1991.
4. These termination orders were challenged by the association of the respondents, namely, the Bihar State Adult and Non-Formal Education Employees Association, by way of CWJC No.5036 of 1992. That writ petition was disposed of along with connected cases vide judgment dated 24th May, 1996 [The Bihar State Adult and Non-Formal Education Employees Association and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., 1996 SCC Online Pat 235 : (1996) 2 PLJR 394]. Paragraph Nos.36 and 37 of the judgment read thus:
“36. There is no doubt that petitioners’ initial appointments were made to a scheme which was purely temporary, therefore, it may not be possible for me to ask the respondent authorities to regularize their services. But I have already noticed that their appointments were made as per the prescribed norms of the Government after proper advertisement etc. I have also noticed that having regard to their past services rendered continuously for ten to fourteen years, the State authorities had themselves absorbed at least 771 of such Supervisors and for rest steps were under contemplation. Petitioners have also been able to establish successfully that the decision of the authorities to cancel such adjustment was not only malafide rather shameful. But now a stand is being taken by the respondents that those 771 posts were also temporary hence a decision was taken to terminate the petitioners. Therefore, in these backgrounds, it would not be proper to quash the order of petitioners’ termination.
37. But it cannot be ignored that having regard to the long services rendered by the petitioners, administrative authorities had suggested steps for their absorption even in other departments. Therefore, having taken into consideration entire facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of the writ petitions with the following direction to the respondent-authorities: (a) to allow the petitioners and interveners to continue against these 771 posts, against which they were adjusted in terms of the letter of the concerned department, dated 19th December, 1990. But such adjustment is to be made as per their seniority or (b) in case those posts have also been abolished, take steps to absorb/adjust the petitioners along with the interveners in a similar manner, the employees of Consolidation Department were adjusted or (c) if f
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
