Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Kiran Vasudev vs The Gwalior Development Authority on 3 December, 2021
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Hrishikesh Roy
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No(s). 7377-7378/2021
(Arising out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Nos.19999-20000/2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) Diary No(s). 26698/2019
KIRAN VASUDEV Appellant(s)
VERSUS
GWALIOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Delay Condoned.
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench which set aside the direction of the learned Single Judge of the High Court directing the respondent-Gwalior Development Authority (“GDA” for short) to create a supernumerary post.
The appellant had approached the Court for appropriate directions claiming that she was working as a Daily Wager since Signature Not Verified 22.09.1988.
Digitally signed by
In the meanwhile, certain other employees claimed Indu Marwah Date: 2021.12.11 16:32:05 IST regularization and approached the Labour Court. Reason:
By Award of the Labour Court dated 19.12.2002, other 2 employees who had raised a similar grievance were given relief.
In compliance with that award, GDA regularized the services of the 15 employees who had approached the Labour Court.
The Single Judge of the High Court after noticing the length of her service as well as the orders of the Labour Court, directed her regularization and also the creation of the supernumerary posts.
Aggrieved, the GDA approached the Division Bench which did not upset the findings of the Single Judge but modified their operative directions, holding that creation of a vacancy and consequential relief could not be granted. Those directions were accordingly set aside.
Before this Court, various decisions were cited on behalf of the GDA to submit that the impugned order was justified in including decisions of this Court reported in; State of Karnataka & Others vs. C. Lalita1 , Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karamchari Sanghatana ]2 & Mahatma Phule Agricultural University & Ors. vs. 3 Nasik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union and Others and other as well as the recent judgment; Union of India & Ors. vs. Ilmo Devi and Another4.
1 (2006) 2 SCC 747 2 (2009) 8 SCC 556 3 (2001) 7 SCC 346 4 2021 (12)SCALE 66 3 On the other hand, counsel for the appellant urged that the impugned order needs to be set aside as it has ignored the discrimination which would result from upsetting the direction of the Single Judge, which the impugned order did. Learned counsel pointed out to the injustice to the appellant in view of the regularization granted by GDA to 15 employees who had approached the labour court on the one hand, and the consequence that would flow if the impugned order, were to be sustained. Heaving heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment to the extent that it held the direction cannot be issued for the creation of a post including a supernumerary post is warranted. Nevertheless equally GDA as an authority and bound by the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution could not have permitted discrimination against one of its employees given that other employees- who were concededly juniors to the appellant: were regularized pursuant to the order of Labour Court. The award was complied with, without demur.
In the circumstances, the Court hereby allow this appeal in part to the extent that the regularization benefits given to the appellant are not confined to the terms of the order dated 06.07.2019. It would be in line with the order dated 23.10.2004 issued in favour of the other employees. In other words, the appellant shall be entitled to all regularization benefits with effect from the same dates as her 4 juniors were given by virtue of the order dated 23.10.2004. The differential pay-scales fitment and pay revision order shall be issued within four weeks, and consequential benefits including monetary benefits, be granted in eight weeks. The appeals are partly allowed to the above extent.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .J. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT] . . . . . . . . . . . . .J. [HRISHIKESH ROY] New Delhi December 3,2021 5 ITEM NO.19 Court 2 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IV-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 26698/2019 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-05-2018 in WA No. 480/2018 03-05-2019 in RP No. 1028/2018 passed by the High Court Of M.P. at Gwalior) KIRAN VASUDEV Petitioner(s) VERSUS GWALIOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 125884/2019 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 24856/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 186279/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 125885/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 125886/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES) Date : 03-12-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY For Petitioner(s) Mr. Prashant Shukla Adv.
Mr. Anushree Shukla Adv Mr. Pratibha Yadav Adv Mr. Mayank Gautam Adv Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. NK Mody, Sr. Adv., Mr. Chirag Sharma (Adv) Mr. Prabuddha Singh Gour (Adv.) Mr. Rajesh Kandhari Advocate Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, AOR Mr. B. S. Banthia, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay Condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeal are partly allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(INDU MARWAH) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE)