Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Vinod Kumar . vs Secretary Ministry Of Communication on 30 October, 2018
Author: Kurian Joseph
Bench: Kurian Joseph, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud
1
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1081710818 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos. 3801138012 of 2016)
VINOD KUMAR AND ORS. .. Appellant(s)
Versus
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND ORS. .. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN JOSEPH,J.
Leave granted.
The appellants before this Court had a limited
grievance that they have not been reinstated in terms
of the judgment dated 16.05.2008 passed by the High
Court and the order dated 11.03.2011 passed by this
Court in SLP(Civil) No. 24235 of 2008.
When the matter came up for admission on 16.12.2016,
this Court passed the following order:
“The learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that all the other coworkers, who are similarly
situated and did not face retrenchment, have
been regularised in service. It is further
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SHASHI SAREEN
submitted that even those who faced
Date: 2018.11.13
retrenchment, have been regularised and only the
15:01:52 IST
Reason:
petitioners have been discriminated.
It is further pointed out that there was a
2
direction by the learned Single Judge of the
High Court to consider them for regularisation
and what was conceded by the petitioners before
this Court was only forgoing the backwages and
in all other respects, the understanding was
that the other directions would survive.”
Mr. R.D.Agrawala, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondents had made a vehement
statement that this Court had only granted benefit of
continuity of service and not regularisation. We are
afraid, this submission cannot be appreciated. The
order passed by the High Court to the relevant extent
reads as follows:
“The retrenchment of the petitioners effected
on 16th August, 2001 vide Annexure A10 and
similar notices issued to be petitioners are
quashed and set aside. The retrenchment of the
petitioners with effect from 16.8.2001 is
declared void ab initio. The petitioners will
be deemed to be in continuous service with the
respondents with all consequential benefits.
The respondents are directed to consider the
cases of the petitioners for regularization
under Annexure A1 on the premise that they had
completed requisite number of days as observed
by the Court with all consequential benefits.
It is also declared that the petitioners were
eligible to be considered for regularization
under the left out scheme/instructions issued in
the year 2001 as well.
3
The entire exercise will be completed by the
respondents within a period of 6 weeks from
today.”
(Emphasis supplied)
It was against the above order, the respondent had
approached this Court leading to the Order dated
11.03.2011. The order passed by this Court read as
under:
“Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
states that the respondents shall not claim any
back wages, if they are reinstated in terms of
the impugned judgments. She, however, prays that
the respondents should not be deprived of other
service benefits. In view of the statement of
learned counsel appearing for the respondents, we
dispose of the Special Leave Petition with the
direction that the respondents shall be
reinstated within four weeks from today.
However, except for the benefit of continuity in
service for the purposes of pension, they will
not be entitled to any other relief.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of
accordingly.”
(Emphasis supplied)
It is fairly clear that the intention of this Court
was that the appellants should be considered for
regularisation. What was deprived was only the benefit
of back wages which the appellants already gave up.
The order passed by the High Court is setaside and the
4
appeals are allowed. The appellants, in terms of the
declaration made by the High Court, shall stand
regularised w.e.f. 11.04.2011. They shall not be
entitled for any back wages till 11.04.2011. But from
11.04.2011, they shall be entitled for all benefits as
regular employees. The same shall be disbursed within
eight weeks from today and, if not, the benefits will
carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 11.04.2011
and the officers responsible for the delay shall be
personally liable for the same.
......................J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
…......................J.
(A.M.KHANWILKAR)
.........................J.
(DR.DHANANJAYA.Y.CHANDRACHUD)
New Delhi,
Dated: 30th October, 2018.
5
ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV
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). 38011-
38012/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-10-2015
in COPC No. 782/2015 11-07-2016 in COPC No. 782/2015 passed by the
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh At Shimla)
VINOD KUMAR . & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SECRETARY MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 53850 of 2018-Exemption from filing O.T. )
Date : 30-10-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Rani Chhabra, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Vijay Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
Mr. R.D.Agrawala, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Chandra Nand Jha, Adv.
Mr. Chiranjeev Johri, Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mathur, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed judgment. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SHASHI SAREEN) (RENU DIWAN)
AR CUM PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)