RAJNISH KUMAR MISHRA vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAW
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.94139414 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 2329723298 of 2018) RAJNISH KUMAR MISHRA & ORS. ETC. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ETC. .... RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T Leave granted.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The appeals challenge the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 09.07.2018, which has dismissed the appeals filed by the present appellants and confirmed the order passed by the learned single judge of the said High Court dated 14.9.2017 with some modifications. Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2019.12.13 16:47:54 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified
2
The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeals are as under.
On creation of the Ambedkar Nagar Judgeship, the appellants were appointed on adhoc basis. The appellants were appointed in the year 19992001. The initial appointment of the appellants was made for a period of three months, which term was extended from time to time.
In the year 2001, an advertisement was issued for direct recruitment of ClassIII employees, which led the appellants to file several writ petitions before the High Court which were clubbed together, the lead Writ Petition being W.P. No.7544(S/S) of 2003. In the said bunch of writ petitions, an order was passed on 01.08.2006 providing therein, that appellants may apply in response to the advertisement and their cases shall be considered along with other candidates. It was also directed that the District Judge may send their names to High Court on administrative side for considering, if they could be granted relaxation in age. It was further observed, that it was open for the District Judge and Selection Committee to take into account the length of service and experience etc. of the
3 appellants. It was further directed that till the selection process was over, appellants would be allowed to continue in service in the same capacity.
It appears from the record that subsequently the said selection process came to be cancelled and the appellants were continued in the employment on the ad hoc basis as per the interim order passed on 01.08.2006. It further appears, that in the meantime the appellants, since they were continued for a long period, made representations to the District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar for their regularisation. The District Judge by an order dated 28.5.2012 constituted a Committee under the chairmanship of an Additional District Judge, comprising of two other members who were also Judicial Officers. The said Committee submitted its report on 12.07.2012, recommending regularization of the appellants. Pursuant to the said recommendation made by the Committee, the District Judge passed orders regularising the services of the appellants on 09.11.2012. However, the successor in the office of the District Judge passed an order dated 16.08.2014 thereby, declaring that the orders of regularization were nonest. By a second order passed on
4 the same day i.e. 16.08.2014, the District Judge also withdrew the earlier order by which, the appellants were granted the benefits of increments with certain other benefits. The District Judge passed a third order on 16.08.2014 thereby, directing recovery of emoluments paid to the appellants. It is further to be noted that after the writ petitions were dismissed by the learned single judge of the High Court on 14.9.2017, the appellants’ services came to be terminated immediately on 23.9.2017. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid three orders, the appellants filed Writ Petition No.4813 (S/S) of 2014 and Writ Petition No.5530 (S/S) of 2014. The single Judge of High Court by an order dated 14.09.2017, dismissed the writ petitions and also imposed cost of Rs.50,000/ on each of the appellants (petitioners therein).
Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench while dismissing the appeals, however, set aside the order insofar as saddling the costs is concerned. The Division Bench further directed, that since one Manish Kumar Malviya, who was also one of the appellants before
5 the Division Bench of the High Court, was appointed on 06.04.1998, he was eligible to be considered for regularization in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Adhoc Appointment (On Post within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 as amended in the year 2001. It was further directed, that till the outcome of consideration of his case for regularization he should be continued on adhoc basis. The Division Bench further directed that in case any recruitment process for Class III posts takes place in future, the appellants would be permitted to participate in the same and the Court would consider grant of relaxation in age and grant of preference to them by giving some benefit of length of service rendered by them in adhoc capacity. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants have approached this Court.
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellants submits, that the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have erred in dismissing the petitions and appeals of the appellants. She submits, that the Committee under the chairmanship of the Additional District Judge had given report on 12.07.2012 on the basis of Circular dated 05.11.2009, issued by the
6 High Court. She further submits, that the then incumbent of the office of the District Judge had rightly, after considering the report, issued the order of regularisation on 9.11.2012. She submits, that as a matter of fact, there was no occasion for the successor in the office of the District Judge to have passed order dated 16.08.2014, cancelling the order of regularization granted vide order dated 9.11.2012. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits, that during the pendency of the writ petitions the UP Regularization of Persons Working on daily wages or on work charge or on contract in government department on group ‘C’ and group ‘D’ posts (outside the purview of the UP Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 were framed. Rule 6 thereof provided cutoff date as 31.12.2001. She further submits, that the High Court has failed to take into consideration the import of said Rules.
The learned counsel further submits, that this Court in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.1, after considering the judgment of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. 1 (2018) 13 SCC 432 {Civil Appeal No.18510 of 2017 [@ SLP(C) No.6183/2015]}
7 Umadevi (3) & Ors.2 wherein it was observed that as a onetime measure the employer should take steps for regularisation of the services of the employees who had put in service of 10 years or more and had directed regularization of the appellants therein. The learned counsel further submits, that the appeals deserve to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Shri S.R. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit, that the appellants continued in service by virtue of interim order passed by the High Court dated 01.08.2006 and, as such, the benefit of onetime regularization as provided by the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Umadevi (supra), cannot be granted to the appellants. It is further submitted, that the report of the Committee set up by the District Judge dated 12.07.2012 was collusive and, as such, the successor in the office of District Judge had rightly passed an order dated 16.08.2014 thereby, cancelling the order of regularization dated 09.11.2012 passed on the basis of the Report dated 2 (2006) 4 SCC 1
8 12.07.2012. He further submits, that the appellants are not entitled to the equitable relief and, as such, the appeals deserve to be dismissed.
We have perused the material placed on record. The Circular addressed by the
