Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of U.P vs Vijay Prakash Pradhan on 1 July, 2014
vN 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S).10814 OF 2013
STATE OF U.P & ANR
Appellant(s)
VERSUS
VIJAY PRAKASH PRADHAN Respo
ndents(s)
O R D E R
The respondent appears to have been engag ed as an assistant engineer in the Public Works Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh on ad-hoc basis. His claim for regularisation under the Uttar Pradesh Regularizat ion of Ad-hoc appointments (on the posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules 1979, having been declined the appellant filed W.P.No.2642 of 1980 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which petition has been disposed of by a common order dated 21st September, 1994 passed in a batch of cases. The High Court has by that order directed the respondent-State to consider regularizing the services of all such writ petitioners in whose cases adverse entries had been recorded and relied upon by the Selection Committee, without so much as communicating such entries to those affected by the same. Reconsideration became necessary because such adverse entries were subsequently expunged.
Upon reconsideration of the matter the State once again came to the conclusion that the respondent was not fit for regularization of his services.
Signature Not Verified As a sequel to that fin ding Digitally signed bythe services of the respondent were terminated in terms of an Mahabir Singh Date: 2014.07.14 17:15:00 IST Reason: order dated 4th September, 1996. Aggrieved the respondent preferred W.P. No.998 of 1996 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which petition has been in terms of an 2 order passed by the High Court on 22 nd August, 2012 disposed of with a direction to the State-appellants herein to pay to the respondent all post-retiral dues ignoring order of termination dated 4th September, 1996.
It is common ground that although order dated 4 th September, 1996 purported to terminate the services of the respondent who had continued in service till 2009 under an interim order passed by the High Court on 10th October, 1996. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has eventually demitted office in the year 2009. Mr. C.D. Singh in the above backdrop argued that the High Court had fallen in a palpable error in directing payment of post-retiral dues to the respondent without appreciating that the respondent was not a regular employee who could claim any such dues. The case of the respondent having been considered for regularization and the respondent having been found to be unfit for any such benefit, there was no question of treating him to be in service on a substantive basis so as to be entitled to any retiral benefits. The order passed by the High Court, it was argued, does not deal with the question whether refusal of regularization by the competent authority was justified nor does it deal with the question whether the order of termination suffered from any illegality so as to wa rrant interference by the High Court. Inasmuch as the High Court had failed to address both these aspects, the direction for payment of retiral dues was unsustainable.
On behalf of the respondent it was on the other hand argued by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel, that the order passed by the High Court directing payment of retiral dues to the respondent was passed on the basis of a concession made before the High Court by the standing counsel of the State. It was urged that so long as the said concession held the field, the High Court was under
no obligation to go into the merits of the case touching the 3 entitlement of the respondent for regularization or the validity of the termination order.
The material facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the respondent had been employed only on ad-hoc basis. It is also not in dispute that the High Court had in terms of its order dated 21st September, 1994 directed reconsideration of the case of the respondent on the basis of his service record. In compliance with that direction the case of the respondent had been considered but regularization denied to him on the ground that he was not found fit for these benefits. The refusal to regularize the services of the respondent had however come under challenge before the High Court in W.P.No.998 of 1996 which would necessarily have given rise to the question whether the consideration accorded to the appellant was proper and whether interference with the order of termination that flowed from such refusal was called for. Both these aspects it appears escaped the attention of the High Court. It is true that the standing counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh in the High Court appears to have made a statement that he had no objection to a direction for payment of post-retiral dues to the respondent herein but we fail to appreciate how such a statement could result in the grant of retiral benefits so long as the order passed by the competent authority declining regularisation was intact. It is trite that the question of release of retiral dues could arise only in case the High Court first interfered with the order refusing to regularize the services of the respondent and either directed reconsideration of his case or regularized the services of the respondent by a court order. Inasmuch as the High Court issued a direction for release of retiral dues without clearing the decks for such payment it committed a mistake that is apparent.
We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and remit the matter back to the High 4 Court with the request that the matter be heard afresh for appropriate orders in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above. We make it clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be taken as expression of any opinion by us as to the correctness of the order passed by the competent authority declining regularization of the appellant. No costs.
.......................J (T.S. THAKUR) .......................J (C. NAGAPPAN) NEW DELHI DATED 01st JULY, 2014 5 ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.3 SECTION XI 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). 10814/2013 STATE OF U.P & ANR Appellant(s) VERSUS VIJAY PRAKASH PRADHAN Respondents(s) (Wth appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and permission to file additional documents and vacating stay and prayer for interim relief) Date: 01/07/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C NAGAPPAN For Appellant(s) Mr. C. D. Singh,Adv.
Mr. Upendra Mishra,Adv.
Ms. Sakshi Kakkar,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Meenakshi Arora,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Rahul Narayan,Adv.
Ms. Mala Narayan,Adv.
Ms. Mahima Sareen,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In terms of the signed order the appeal is allowed:
"We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court with a request to hear the matter afresh for appropriate orders in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above. Since the matter is fairly old, we request the High Court to expedite the hearing and disposal of the case. We make it clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be taken as expression of any opinion by us as to the correctness of the order passed by the competent authority declining regularization of the appellant. No costs."
(MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)