Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India vs Nawal Kishore Prasad . on 4 December, 2014
Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, Shiva Kirti Singh, Arun Mishra
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.6200 OF 2011
UNION OF INDIA .......APPELLANT
VERSUS
NAWAL KISHORE PRASAD & ORS. ......RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL No.6203 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL No.6204 OF 2011
O R D E R
It is not a matter of dispute, that employees working on
muster roll, are entitled to count 50% of their continuous service
as casual labours, as qualifying service for the determination of
their pensionary benefits. The impugned order clearly records, that
the date of initial engagement, and the date of regularisation, of
each of the respondents is clearly established, and is not a matter
of dispute. The only question which needed determination, whilst
the controversy was pending before the High Court was, whether the
respondents had rendered continuous service without break, prior to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
their regularisation. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter
Satish Kumar Yadav
Date: 2014.12.11
16:32:19 IST
Reason:
is concerned, the High Court disposed of the issue by recording the
factual position in paragraph 9 of the impugned order. Paragraph 9
2
of the impugned order is being extracted hereunder:
“9. This finding cannot be said to be wrong,
especially when the impugned orders did not mention
as to for what period the applicants worked
continuously and on monthly basis. Interestingly,
the same officer, namely, Shri Vijay Kumar had
prepared a note for perusal of officer on special
duty after the judgment of the Tribunal dated
07.03.2003. In this note it has been certified that
the applicants have rendered continuous service
without break and on monthly basis from the date of
their initial engagement.”
(emphasis is ours)
It is, therefore, apparent that an officer of the appellant
himself had certified that the respondents have been rendering
continuous service without break.
It is only after the aforesaid determination can be refuted,
that there would be substance in the contention raised at the hands
of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is, therefore, that
the learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the
note recorded by the aforesaid Mr.Vijay Kumar, that the respondents
had rendered continuous service without break, and on monthly
basis, from the date of their initial engagement.
The said note of the above Vijay Kumar dated 23.04.2004 is
available on the record of this case as Annexure P-7. We have
perused the same. We do not find any reason to arrive at a
conclusion different from the one recorded by the High Court in
paragraph 9 of the impugned order, extracted hereinabove.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no
justification whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order.
3
The instant appeals are accordingly dismissed.
...........................J.
(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)
...........................J.
(SHIVA KIRTI SINGH)
..........................J.
(ARUN MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 4, 2014.
4
ITEM NO.110 COURT NO.4 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s).6200/2011
UNION OF INDIA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
NAWAL KISHORE PRASAD & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln. (s) for directions and permission to file additional
documents and exemption from appointment of official translator and
early hearing and office report)
WITH
C.A. No. 6203/2011
C.A. No. 6204/2011
Date : 04/12/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
For Appellant(s) Mrs. Mona K. Rajvanshi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr.S.B.Upadhyay, Sr.Adv.
Mr. H. S. Parihar, Adv.
Mr.Shree Prakash Sinha, Adv.
Mr.Rakesh Mishra, Adv.
Dr. Kailash Chand, AOR(Not Present)
Mr.Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv.
Ms. Susmita Lal, Adv.
Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (RENUKA SADANA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file) 5