Absorption rights for retrenched employees are contingent upon participation in litigation; non-parties are not entitled to benefit from judicial decisions of previous cases.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. Petitioners in present bunch of writ petitions are retrenched employees of U.P. Cement Corporation which was wounded way back in the year 1999 and have approached this Court that their claim for absorption in any alternative government department be considered in terms of Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991 (for short “Rules of 1991”) as well as that benefit of absorption granted to other retrenched employees of same Corporation by a judgment of Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Verma vs. State of U.P. and others , (2016) 1 SCC 397 be extended to them also.

2. S/Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, Advocate as well as Sri Madan Lal Srivastava, Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, Sri R.K. Singh Gaharwar, Sri Vijay Kumar, Sri Kanhaiya Lal, Sri Abhay Kumar Srivastava, Sri Shatrughan Sonwal, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, Sri Animesh Srivastava, Sri Krishna Pratap Singh Kaushik and Sri Rahul Kumar Tiwari, Advocates for petitioners have vehemently urged that petitioners were before this Court through their Association way back in the year 1998, when Corporation was under process of winding by way of filing a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21199/1998, which was disposed of vide order dated 07.07.1998 that claim of petitioners therein be considered for absorption in accordance with law. For reference, relevant part of said order is quoted below :-

“Heard learned counsel for petitioners. This petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make a representation to the authority concerned regarding his grievance and the same will be decided within two months of the production of certificate of copy of this order in accordance with law.”

3. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioners has further submitted that despite various communications and representations, submitted in pursuance of above referred order, their respective claim for absorption were not considered.

4. Learned Senior Advocate has not disputed that they were not party in writ petitions which ultimately reached up to Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Verma (supra) i.e. neither they were party before learned Single Judge nor before Division Bench of this Court nor before Supreme Court, despite said litigation remained pending before above Courts from 2003 to 2016 (i.e. for 13 years), when finally the Supreme Court has passed above referred judgment of Sunil Kumar Verma (supra).

5. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that in Sunil Kumar Verma (supra), relevant provisions of ‘Rules of 1991’, subsequent Rule viz. UP Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service (Rescission of Rules) Rules, 2003 (for short “Rules of 2003”) and also Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service (Rescission of Rules) Act, 2009 (for short “Act of 2009”) were considered and taken note of and only thereafter has passed direction for absorption of the appellants before Supreme Court. However, they were not able to much dispute that Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Verma (supra) has passed directions only qua to appellants therein. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioner was failed to show any part of