SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, CJI., D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, L.NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, BANDIPORA – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL No. 36084 OF 2016 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)11941 OF 2016 (@ out of SLP (C) CC No. 16091 OF 2016)
Decided On : 08-12-2016
Facts of Case:
Point in issue centres around right of employees (daily rated workers engaged in High Court at Srinagar) seeking regularization on strength of long and continuous work. In a Public Interest Litigation seeking construction of a district court complex in Bandipora District High Court proceeded to issue directions for regularization of services of daily rated workers. These directions were totally unconnected to reliefs which were sought in PIL.
Findings of Court:
Direction for regularization was issued by High Court without considering relevant constitutional and legal principles. While some of daily rated workers have been engaged over long periods of time, others have been engaged as recently as in 2015. Issue of whether such appointments were irregular or whether they were illegal should have been determined but has not been considered. At this stage it would be appropriate and proper to set aside impugned order of High Court which directs regularization en masse of two hundred nine daily rated workers. While doing so, we restore proceedings back to file of High Court for reconsideration. (Para 23)
Result – Appeal disposed of with directions.
JUDGMENT
Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
2. The State of Jammu and Kashmir seeks to challenge the orders dated 1 December 2015 and 10 August 2016 of a Division Bench of the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation instituted by the District Bar Association, Bandipora. The grievance of the Bar Association was that since the creation of the district of Bandipora in 2007, the Sessions Court has been housed in a building which used to be a part of the Munsif’s Court Complex. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate and Munsif discharge their judicial functions in a building which lacks basic amenities. On 30 November 2013 during the course of a mega Lok Adalat, the Administrative Judge expressed the view that a suitable plot of land is urgently required for the District Court. This was communicated by the Additional Deputy Commissioner to the Tehsildar on 30 November 2013. A direction was sought for the transfer of certain land which is stated to have been earmarked for the construction of the District Court Complex or, in the alternative, for the provision of a suitable site. Provision of proper amenities was sought.
3. During the course of the hearing of the Public Interest Litigation, the Division Bench noted in an order dated 7 October 2015 that an application had been filed by the daily rated workers engaged in the High Court at Srinagar (MP1/2015). The Advocate General informed the Division Bench that a direction had been issued by a co-ordinate Bench in a writ petition filed by the daily rated workers requiring the State to file its response.
4. By its interim direction dated 7 October 2015, the Division Bench ordered thus :
“Respondent – State is duty bound to consider claim of the daily rated workers and as a “one time exception” regularize their services. Commissioner Secretary to Government, Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, to file Status Report about this aspect of the matter as well before next date of hearing.”
A Special Leave Petition filed by the state government against the interim order of the High Court was dismissed by this Court on 16 December 2015.
5. On 1 December 2015, the Division Bench issued a further direction in which notice was taken of the fact that the state government had, over a considerable period of time, failed to create the required number of posts for the state judiciary. As a result, and in order to ensure that the work of the courts was not hampered, arrangements were made to engage persons on a daily wage basis. The High Court observed that the state government is duty bound to create an equal number of posts for the absorption of daily rated employees at the earliest. The observations of the High Court are extracted below :
“It is submitted that considerable period of time, the Government has not created required number of posts for the State Judiciary. It is also submitted that because of dearth of staff, the work in the courts was hampered. It is also submitted that in order to ensure that the work of the courts do not suffer and until such time posts are created by the Government, which is the Constitutional responsibility of the State, it was deemed necessary to make engagements on daily wage basis. It is submitted that this step was taken to ensure that the judicial work does not suffer. This class of employees in essence are the substitute for regular employees posts which the Government was duty bound to create. These Daily Rated Workers would not be regulated by the rules governed by SRO 64 of 1994. The information has been already provided to the Government about these persons who have been engaged in Daily wage Basis and the Government shall have to create equal number of posts in the State Judiciary for their absorption which action is to be taken independent of the Rules notified vide SRO 64 of 1994. The information has been already provided to the Government about these persons who have been engaged o
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana
Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa
Surendra Kumar v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority
State of Karnataka v. G.V. Chandrashekar
Employees’ Union v. Mineral Exploration Corpn. Ltd.
State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma
Post Master General v. Tutu Das (Dutta)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.