Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ram Prit Mahto vs State Of Bihar . on 8 July, 2014
¼\230 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.6377 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.18483 of 2010)
RAM PRIT MAHTO .......APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. .......RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL No.6378 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.10861/2008)
CIVIL APPEAL No.6379-6380 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.23976-23977/2008)
CIVIL APPEAL No.6381 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.16072/2010)
CIVIL APPEAL No.6382 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.16721/2010)
CIVIL APPEAL No.6383 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.18905/2010)
CIVIL APPEAL No.6384 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.18907/2010)
CIVIL APPEAL No.6386-6387 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.19928-19929/2010)
CIVIL APPEAL No.6388 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.24476/2010)
CIVIL APPEAL No.6389 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.1949/2011)
Signature Not Verified
CIVIL APPEAL No.6390 OF 2014
Digitally signed by
Satish Kumar Yadav
Date: 2014.07.16
14:42:06 IST
Reason: (Arising out of SLP(C) No.6279/2011)
CIVIL APPEAL No.6391 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.35129/2011)
2
O R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL No.6377 OF 2014 @ SLP(C)No.18483 of 2010
Leave granted.
The appellant before this Court was inducted in the
employment of the respondents as far back in 1974. He was
initially required to discharge duties on an officiating basis as a
Lower Division Clerk, against a leave vacancy. Thereafter, he was
appointed as a site chowkidar, in the work charge establishment.
His employment continued on different posts, as were available in
the work charge establishment and muster roll staff, in different
projects of the State Government. In 1976, the appellant also had
the occasion of discharging duties against the post of Telephone
Assistant. Undisputedly, the post of Telephone Assistant is a
Class-III post.
On 19.02.1981, the State Government issued a Circular to
absorb work charge employees appointed prior to 21.08.1975. The
aforesaid policy has been placed on the record of this case as
Annexure P/2. The only requirement for absorption under the policy
dated 19.02.1981 is, as expressed in paragraph 2(b), namely, that
in case a vacancy against a regular post was available, and an
employee fulfilling the qualifications and eligibility conditions
prescribed therefor was available, he could be absorbed against the
said post.
It is the case of the appellant, that he fulfilled the
conditions of eligibility, as also, the qualifications prescribed
3
for the post of Clerk, and was accordingly absorbed against the
post of Clerk vide an order dated 16.07.1981.
On 26.05.2004, after a lapse of about 23 years, a show
cause notice was issued to the appellant, seeking to recall the
order of his absorption. He was required to respond to the same
within a period of seven days. The appellant filed his rep
ly
thereto on 31.05.2004. By an order dated 03.12.2004, t
he
explanation tendered by the appellant was rejected, and he was
ordered to be reverted back to Class-IV service with retrospective
effect.
The above order dated 03.12.2004 was assailed by t
he
appellant, by filing CWJC No.2236 of 2005. The High Court of Patna
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘the High Court’) accepted the
prayer made by the appellant, and set aside the reversion order on
21.06.2006. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge on 21.06.2006, the respondent State preferred
a
Letters Patent Appeal. A Division Bench of the High Court accepted
the appeal preferred by the State on 23.12.2009. The High Court
while accepting the above appeal, inter alia arrived at t
he
conclusion, that the appellant could not be absorbed against the
post of Clerk, because he did not fulfill the educational
qualifications prescribed for the said post. Paragraph 27 of the
impugned order records the finding of the Letters Patent Bench.
Relevant portion thereof is being extracted hereunder:
"Secondly, the respondent was admittedly a
matriculate which is not the minimum educational
qualification for Class-III post. The contention
advanced on behalf of the respondent is, therefore,
rejected. The remaining issues are governed by the
4
order passed in L.P.A.No.129 of 2007."
In addition to the above determination, the High Court was of the
view, that the absorption of the appellant was unjustified under
the policy of the Government dated 19.02.1981.
Insofar as the possession of the prescribed qualification
is concerned, it is now not a matter of dispute at the hands of the
learned counsel for the respondents, that the appellant possessed
the qualification of matriculation, which is indeed the prescribed
qualification for the post against which he was absorbed. In the
above view of the matter, we have no hesitation to set aside the
finding of the Letters Patent Bench, in the impugned order dated
23.12.2009, that the appellant did not possess the prescribed
qualifications for the post against which he was absorbed.
Insofar as the validity of the absorption of the
appellant, under the Government policy dated 19.02.1981 is
concerned, it is not necessary for us to adjudicate upon the
instant aspect of the matter on merits. Suffice to record, that on
similar issues in respect of persons similarly situated as the
appellant, various orders were passed by the High Court setting
aside similar reversion orders. Reference in this behalf may be
made to the decision rendered by the High Court in Mukhtar Singh
vs. State of Bihar and others - CWJC No.11319 of 2006 decided on
11.05.2011, and Janki Raman Trivedi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. -
CWJC No.7903 of 2007 decided on 13.02.2012, wherein on the same
ground as was the basis for the High Court to find fault with the
order of absorption of the appellant, the High Court had set aside
5
the order of reversion. The aforesaid determination rendered by the
High Court was accepted by the State, and all the employees were
reinstated against the posts on which they were originally
absorbed. Accordingly, we are of the view that the State
Government cannot be permitted to adopt a different stance, as it
has taken qua other persons, similarly situated as the appellant.
This brings us to the last contention advanced at the
hands of the learned counsel for the respondents, so as to dissuade
us from setting aside the impugned order passed by the High Court.
In this behalf, learned counsel for the respondents has invited our
attention to the decision rendered by the Full Bench of the High
Court in Durganand Jha vs. State of Bihar (and other connected
matters) 2007(4) PLJR 259 decided on 28.09.2007.
It is not necessary for us, to engage ourselves on the
instant submission advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for
the respondents because the issue with which the Full Bench was
engaged in the above judgment, pertained to promotion and
regularisation, whereas, the instant policy of the State Government
dated 19.02.1981, pertains to absorption of work charge staff,
against regular posts. In fact, in one of the Letters Patent
Appeals, which was allowed by the High Court, setting aside the
orders of reversion, of persons similarly situated as the
appellant, the judgment rendered by the Full Bench was justifiably
distinguished by observing as under:
"We may at the outset note that before the
Full Bench neither the aforesaid Circular dated 19 th
February 1981 nor the clarification dated 2nd April
6
1983 was the subject matter of interpretation. The
above referred Circular dated 19th February 1981 is
placed on record in the counter affidavit filed by
the State Government. The said Circular was issued
specifically in respect of the work charge employees
in the Irrigation Department. The preamble suggests
that appointment on work charge establishment was
made indiscriminately pursuant to the Government
Order dated 22nd March 1970. Further appointment on
work charge establishment was banned under the
Government circular dated 21st July 1975.
Nevertheless, the appointment on work charge
establishment was far in excess of the sanctioned
strength. The absorption of such excess work charge
employees on the sanctioned post would take a long
time. It was, therefore, decided that the maximum
number of work charge employees appointed prior to
21st July 1975 be absorbed on the regular vacant
posts according to their qualification.
The said circular was later explained under
circular dated 2nd April 1983. Under the said
explanation it was clarified that under the circular
dated 19th February 1981 the State Government did
not intend to grant promotion to any of the work
charge employee and that in no circumstances a
Class-IV employee be absorbed in Class-III service.
It is indisputable that the appellants were
the beneficiaries of the aforesaid circular dated
19th February 1981. Both of them were appointed in
work charge establishment prior to 21st July 1975.
Keeping in view their educational qualification they
were absorbed in Class-III service under order dated
16th July 1981 and 29th August 1981. Even after the
aforesaid explanation/clarification dated 2nd April
1983 the appellants were continued in Class-III
service until the reversion orders were made in
2004.
In above view of the matter, we hold that
the absorption of the appellants in Class-III
service pursuant to the Government circular dated
19th February 1981 was legal and valid. Their
induction in regular Class-III service cannot be
said to be void ab initio. If at all there were any
confusion in respect of interpretation of the
circular dated 19th February 1981, the respondents
were required to take appropriate action soon after
the clarification dated 2nd April 1983. Evidently,
that was not done.
7
We are of the view that if the induction of
the appellant in Class-III service was legal and
valid and they were allowed to continue as such for
more than 20 years they could not have been
legitimately reverted on 11th February 2004 or on
any other date. The entire foundation that the
appellants’ absorption in Class-III service was
illegal and void ab initio is erroneous. The
impugned order made against the appellants on such
premise, therefore, calls for interference.
It may be noted that though the learned
single Judge has taken note of the circular dated
19th February 1981 and the clarification dated 2nd
April 1983, he has failed to note that the
appellants’ absorption on regular establishment
having been done under the Government circular
cannot be held to be illegal or void ab initio. As
to the aforesaid Full Bench judgment, we must note
that this Court has laid down a general principle
with which there cannot be any dispute. However,
before the Full Bench the cases were that of causal
workers whose appointments were not in accordance
with the relevant rules. That being not the case
before us, the decision of the Full Bench shall not
apply to the facts of the present case."
We hereby endorse the above determination.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are satisfied that
the impugned order passed by the Letters Patent Bench of the High
Court, deserves to be set aside, and the order passed by the
Learned Single Judge deserves to be restored. Ordered accordingly.
CIVIL APPEAL No.6378 OF 2014 @ SLP(C) No.10861/2008, CIVIL APPEAL
Nos.6379-6380 OF 2014 @ SLP(C)Nos.23976-23977/2008, CIVIL APPEAL
No.6381 OF 2014 @ SLP(C) No.16072/2010, CIVIL APPEAL No.6382 OF
2014 @ SLP(C) No.16721/2010, CIVIL APPEAL No.6383 OF 2014 @ SLP(C)
No.18905/2010, CIVIL APPEAL No.6384 OF 2014 @ SLP(C) No.18907/2010,
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.6386-6387 OF 2014 @ SLP(C) Nos.19928-19929/2010,
CIVIL APPEAL No.6388 OF 2014 @ SLP(C) No.24476/2010, CIVIL APPEAL
No.6389 OF 2014 @ SLP(C) No.1949/2011, CIVIL APPEAL No.6390 OF 2014
@ SLP(C) No.6279/2011 and CIVIL APPEAL No.6391 OF 2014 @ SLP(C)
8
No.35129/2011
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The application for deletion of the name of respondent is
allowed.
Learned counsel for the parties are agreed, that the
controversy raised in the instant civil appeals, is identical to
the one adjudicated upon by this Court in Ram Prit Mahto vs. State
of Bihar & Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL No.6377 OF 2014 @ SLP(C)No.18483 of
2010, on 08.07.2014. For the same reasons as have been indicated
by us in CIVIL APPEAL No.6377 OF 2014 @ SLP(C)No.18483 of 2010,
the instant appeals are also allowed.
...........................J.
(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)
...........................J.
(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 08, 2014.
9
ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 18483/2010
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23/12/2009
in LPA No.126/2007 passed by the High Court Of Patna)
RAM PRIT MAHTO Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T.and permission to
bring additional documents and permission to file additional
documents and prayer for interim relief and office report)
(For final disposal)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 10861/2008
(With Prayer for Interim Relief and Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 23976-23977/2008
(With appln.(s) for deletion of the name of respondent and Office
Report)
SLP(C) No. 16072/2010
(With Prayer for Interim Relief and Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 16721/2010
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 18905/2010
SLP(C) No. 18907/2010
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 19928-19929/2010
(With Prayer for Interim Relief and Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 24476/2010
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 1949/2011
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 6279/2011
(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and and c/delay in
refiling SLP and Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 35129/2011
(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report)
Date : 08/07/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
10
For Petitioner(s) Mr.Nagendra Rai, Sr.Adv.
Mr.Shantanu Sagar, Adv.
Mr.Smarhar Singh, Adv.
Mr.Shashank S., Adv.
Ms.Prerana Singh, Adv.
Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, Adv.
Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Adv.
Ms.Shalini Chandra, Adv.
Mr.Sudhanshu Saran, Adv.
Ms.Swati Chandra, Adv.
Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Adv.
Mr.A.K.Singh, Adv.
Mr.Manindra Dubey, Adv.
Mr. T. Mahipal, Adv.
Mr. Naresh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. R. C. Kohli, Adv.
Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Debasis Misra, Adv.
Mr. Prem Sunder Jha, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv.
Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL No.6377 OF 2014 @ SLP(C)No.18483 of 2010 Leave granted.
We are satisfied that the impugned order passed by the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court, deserves to be set aside, and the order passed by the Learned Single Judge deserves to be restored. Ordered accordingly.
CIVIL APPEAL No.6378 OF 2014 @ SLP(C) No.10861/2008, CIVIL APPEAL Nos.6379-6380 OF 2014 @ SLP(C)Nos.23976-23977/2008, CIVIL APPEAL No.6381 OF 2014 @ SLP(C) No.16072/2010, CIVIL APPEAL No.6382 OF 2014 @ SLP(C) No.16721/2010, CIVIL APPEAL No.6383 OF 2014 @ SLP(C) 11 No.18905/2010, CIVIL APPEAL No.6384 OF 2014 @ SLP(C) No.18907/2010, CIVIL APPEAL Nos.6386-6387 OF 2014 @ SLP(C) Nos.19928-19929/2010, CIVIL APPEAL No.6388 OF 2014 @ SLP(C) No.24476/2010, CIVIL APPEAL No.6389 OF 2014 @ SLP(C) No.1949/2011, CIVIL APPEAL No.6390 OF 2014 @ SLP(C) No.6279/2011 and CIVIL APPEAL No.6391 OF 2014 @ SLP(C) No.35129/2011 Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The application for deletion of the name of respondent is allowed.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PHOOLAN WATI ARORA)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)