Madhya Pradesh High Court
Municipal Corporation Jabalpur vs Narendra Kumar Mishra on 14 August, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 14th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT APPEAL NO.485 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
Vijay Kumar Dubey and others.
WRIT APPEAL NO.387 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
Dinesh Kumar Jaat.
WRIT APPEAL NO.391 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
Rakesh Shukla and another.
WRIT APPEAL NO.439 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
2
Ramkesh Singh.
WRIT APPEAL NO.440 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
Sanat Kumar Shukla.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 447 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
Dheeraj Prasad Tripathi.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 461 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
Sushil Shukla.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 462 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
Santosh Gautam and others.
WRIT APPEAL NO.468 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
Hassan Mehndi.
WRIT APPEAL NO.469 OF 2018
3
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
Rajulal Patel.
WRIT APPEAL NO.481 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
Ashok Kumar Dubey.
WRIT APPEAL NO.482 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
Ashok Pathak & others.
WRIT APPEAL NO.484 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
Ramraj Kushwaha and others.
WRIT APPEAL NO.541 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
Vishnu Kant Tripathi.
WRIT APPEAL NO.546 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
4
Vs.
Harishanker Tiwari.
WRIT APPEAL NO.550 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
Amit Yadav and another.
WRIT APPEAL NO.551 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
Shashikant Hazari (dead) through LRs.
WRIT APPEAL NO.552 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
Anil Shukla and others.
WRIT APPEAL NO.612 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
Rakesh Tiwari and another.
WRIT APPEAL NO.655 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
Narendra Kumar Mishra.
5
WRIT APPEAL NO.663 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
Lakhan Prasad Sen and another.
WRIT APPEAL NO.680 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
Surendra Kumar Ingwasia and others.
WRIT APPEAL NO.698 OF 2018
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Vs.
Rustam Khan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Arpan Pawar, learned Advocate for the appellant/
Municipal Corporation.
Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Advocate with Shri
Rahul Choubey, Advocate for the respondent (s) in WA
No.484/2018, WA No.485/2018, WA No.552/2018, WA
No.680/2018.
Shri Vipin Yadav, learned Advocate for the respondent (s)
in WA No.387/2018, WA No.439/2018, WA No.440/2018,
WA No.447/2018, WA No.461/2018, WA No.468/2018, WA
No.469/2018, WA No.481/2018, WA No.546/2018, WA
No.655/2018.
6
Shri Udyan Tiwari, learned Advocate for the respondent(s)
in WA No.462/2018, WA No.482/2018, WA No.698/2018.
Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned Advocate for the
respondent (s) in WA No.391/2018.
Shri Anshul Dixit, learned Advocate for the respondent (s)
in WA No.541/2018.
Shri Thaman Kumar Khadka, learned Advocate for the
respondent (s) in WA No.551/2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 18.07.2024
Passed on : 14.08.2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Per Justice Raj Mohan Singh:
Vide this common judgment WA No.485/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Vijay Kumar Dubey and others), WA No.387/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jaat), WA No.391/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Rakesh Shukla and another), WA No.439/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Ramkesh Singh), WA 7 No.440/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Sanat Kumar Shukla), WA No.447/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Dheeraj Prasad Tripathi), WA No.461/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Sushil Shukla), WA No.462/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Santosh Gautam and others), WA No.468/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Hassan Mehndi), WA No.469/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Rajulal Patel), WA No.481/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Ashok Kumar Dubey), WA No.482/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Ashok Pathak and others), WA No.484/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Ramraj Kushwaha and others), WA No.541/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Vishnu Kant Tripathi), WA No.546/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Harishanker Tiwari), WA No.550/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Amit Yadav and another), WA No.551/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Shashikant Hazari [dead] 8 through LRs Smt. Neelu Hazari and others), WA No.552/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Anil Shukla and others), WA No.612/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Rakesh Tiwari and another), WA No.655/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Narendra Kumar Mishra), WA No.663/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Lakhan Prasad Sen and another), WA No.680/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Surendra Kumar Ingwasia and others) and WA No.698/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Rustam Khan) are being disposed of. Since common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore the facts are being culled out from WA No.485/2018.
2. The appellant has preferred this writ appeal against the order dated 09.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1551/2017.
3. In different writ petitions filed before the learned Single Bench, it was stated by the petitioners therein that they 9 were functioning and discharging their duties with the appellant Corporation on daily wage basis prior to 31.12.1988. They claimed their right of regularization. The High Court had an occasion to consider the aforesaid claim of the employees in WP No.3460/1994 along with other connected matters. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions, the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur took a policy decision to regularize the employees working with the Municipal Corporation prior to 31.12.1988. No policy decision was taken in respect of the employees working on daily wages appointed after 1.1.1989. The bunch matter was decided by this Court vide order dated 27.2.2002. The following directions were issued in respect of both categories of the employees:
"(a) Respondent Corporation who has already prepared the seniority list of daily rated employees who are working prior to 31st December, 1988 will regularise the services of daily rated employees strictly as per their seniority and eligibility subject to availability of post.10
(b) The respondent Corporation has prepared aforesaid seniority List in two heads, technical and non-technical, will be at liberty to fill up the technical post on availability of technical. post from daily rated Worker who possesses requisite qualification. If the technical post is not available and the employee comes in the seniority criteria then respondent Corporation will be at liberty to regularize that person even non-technical post, if on such employee so chooses or opts such regularization.
(c) so far as non-technical persons are concerned, all the daily rated workmen will their regularisation get as soon as the posts become available as per his seniority and eligibility.
(d) This order those employees who have will not affect already baan regularised because of the order passed by the High Court or hy Tabour Court and the aforesaid order has reached its finality. But so far as the other employees concerned, their services will be regularized as per the direction issued today including those whose regularisation are under challenge before this Court.
(e) As the employees are to be regularised or classified on particular post on the availability of vacant post, as has been held 11 in Full Bench decision by this Court in Superintending Engineer VS State of M.P. and others (1999 (1) MPJR 1); in the circumstances, if any litigation in respect of employee who is working prior to 31-12-
19880 after 1-1-1989 respondent Corporation will "place this order before the Labour Court in (that case and labour courts will strictly follow the... decision Full of Bench Judgment and directions issued today in this case.
(f) In respect of those cases in which any junior person has been regularized ignoring seniority of other daily rated employees and if presently the order is under challenge before this Court, the aforesaid order of regularization by the labour court would stand modified, as per this order.
(g) Those employees who are not satisfied with their seniority in the seniority list will file fresh representation before respondent Municipal Corporation within a period of sixty days from today and Municipal Corporation will decide the seniority of those unsatisfied employees within a period of ninety days thereafter.
(h) So far as the regularization of the employees working prior to 31-12-1988 respondent are concerned the will consider the cases for regularization as and when the 12 Posts are strictly according seniority.
available to their seniority."
In respect of the employees, who were engaged after 1.1.1989, the following directions were issued:-
" (a) respondent will prepare a fresh seniority list of all those employees who are continuously working in the Corporation and have achieved the status of permanent workman. This shall be done within 90 days.
(b) The aforesaid list will be duly published by the Corporation and after considering objections of the employees the aforesaid seniority list will be finalized.
(c) The respondent Corporation on availability of post, after exhausting the list of employees working prior to 31-12-88 will regularize the services of all those employees strictly in accordance with their seniority and as per policy Annexure R-4.
(d) The policy Annexure R-4 will also be applicable in respect of employees who are working after 1.189 and have achieved permanent status as provisions of Standing Order.
(e) For regularizing the services of workmen working after 1-1-1989, respondent 13 Corporation will also observe the reservation as has been mentioned in the Policy Annexure R-4 and in, case daily rated employees are available of reserved quota then respondent will fill up the aforesaid quota by regularizing the services of those employees who belongs to reserved category on priority basis and if any such post remains vacant then they will follow the provisions of reservation by the State of M.P."
4. Evidently, the directions were issued in respect of regularization of employees engaged by the Corporation after 1.1.1989 also thereby directing that the policy will also be applicable in respect of the employees, who were working after 1.1.1989 and have achieved a permanent status as per the provisions of the Standing Order. The directions were issued to prepare a fresh seniority list of all those employees, who are continuously working in the Municipal Corporation and have achieved the status of permanent workman. Such list was to be published by the appellant-Corporation after considering the objections from the employees and the seniority list was to be 14 finalized. The Municipal Corporation on availability of post after exhausting the list of employees appointed prior to 31-12- 1988 was required to regularize the services of all those employees, who were appointed after 1.1.1989 strictly in accordance with their seniority. Perusal of the aforesaid order would indicate that the seniority lists of technical and non- technical employees were to be prepared and thereafter regularization of the employees was to be done. The order dated 27.2.2002 passed in the bunch case with lead case in WP No.3460/1994 had attained finality and was binding upon the parties.
5. Thereafter in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 27.2.2002, the seniority lists of daily wage employees were finally prepared and while doing so the order dated 27.2.2002 was implemented vide order dated 28.5.2003. In view of the aforesaid order, the regularization of the employees was done. Thereafter vide order dated 10.8.2005, the appellant 15 Corporation in an illegal manner and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the employees, cancelled the order of regularization, which was ultimately challenged by the employees in number of writ petitions with lead case in WP No.8359/2005. The High Court vide its common order dated 1.9.2005 set aside the order dated 10.8.2005 with liberty to the appellant-Corporation to prepare the seniority list and to hear the employees and thereafter pass fresh order of the de- regularization, if so warranted. The seniority list was required to be prepared a fresh, however it was not to absolve the Corporation from hearing the employees and passing the order in accordance with law. The seniority list was directed to be prepared as per the directions sought in the contempt petition. The writ petitions were allowed to the extent indicated in the order dated 1.9.2005.
6. Contrary to the directions issued by the High Court, the appellant Corporation again issued show cause notice to the 16 employees and without affording any opportunity of hearing, de-regularized the regularization of the employees vide order dated 19.11.2015. The said order was assailed by the employees in number of writ petitions with lead case in WP No.20003/2015. The aforesaid bunch matter was decided by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 24.2.2016. This Court on the anvil of principles of natural justice and on the issue of non- preparation of seniority list as per the directions issued earlier by the High Court, allowed the writ petitions. The orders of de- regularization of the employees dated 19.11.2015 were quashed and it was observed that the Corporation may take action for de-regularization of services of the employees, if so advised in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 particularly in the light of observations made in paragraph 53 of the decision. It was directed that the appellant-Corporation shall first prepare the seniority list as directed vide order dated 17 01.9.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.8359/2005 after inviting objections and thereafter may issue show-cause notices to the employees containing precise grounds, on which action of de- regularization of their services was to be taken. The appellant Corporation filed different writ appeals before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court vide common order dated 22.6.2016 dismissed the appeals thereby granting liberty to the appellant Corporation to conclude the process as directed by the learned Single Judge preferably within a period of six months.
7. Thereafter the appellant Corporation prepared the seniority list by clubbing the technical and non-technical daily wage employees those were working prior to 31.12.1988 and also those were working after 1.1.1989. The seniority list was published on 1.9.2016. By doing so, the appellant-Corporation treated unequal and equal employees without making any distinction between technical and non-technical employees. 18
8. Perusal of the list would show that names of Vijay Kumar Dubey and Madan Singh Thakur found place in the list of technical daily wage employees working prior to 31.12.1988 at Sl.No.12 and 13 and they were assigned seniority at Sl. No.502 and 114 respectively. The name of Anurag Pathak was arbitrarily placed in the list of technical working as daily wage employee from 1.1.1989 at Sl. No.14 and he was assigned seniority at Sl. No.239. Vijay Kumar Dubey and Anurag Pathak submitted their objections to the aforesaid seniority list wherein they reflected their date of birth with reference to qualification in order to show that the date of birth was wrongly recorded and educational qualification was also wrongly reflected. The seniority list was prepared without application of mind and the same was contrary to the directions issued by the Court. The names of the employees, who were working prior to October 1988 were wrongly shown to be the appointees from 1.1.1989 besides changing their date of birth and educational 19 qualifications. The employees of the Public Health Engineering Department were also included in the said seniority list, which was an illegal act. The daily rated employees, who were appointed from the year 2004 to 2012 were also included. The appellant Corporation without considering the aforesaid objections filed by Vijay Kumar Dubey, Madan Singh Thakur and Anurag Pathak proceeded to publish final seniority list on 19.10.2016. The aforesaid seniority list was prepared just to misguide the Court by amalgamating technical and non- technical staff. The technical and non-technical employees were merged.
9. Perusal of the aforesaid joint seniority list would also show that the technical and non-technical daily wage employees were merged. Perusal of the list would show that Sl.No.18 to 34 were technical staff and therefore their inclusion in the list of non-technical staff would show that joint seniority list was wrongly prepared in respect of both technical and non- 20 technical daily wage employees. From Sl.No.131 to 133 the employees were of technical staff, and therefore merger of the employees from 18 to 34 and 131 to 133 were from technical and non-technical staff and names of aforesaid persons have been shown in the joint seniority list. Similarly, the employees from Sl.No.621 to 626 were technical persons and their names have also been shown in the joint seniority list. Perusal of both the lists in respect of technical and non-technical employees would show that the names of technical and non-technical staff were merged in an illegal manner.
10. On the basis of aforesaid seniority list, the appellant-Corporation without verifying the facts from the record in an illegal manner again issued show cause notices dated 3.12.2016 to the employees without adhering to the education qualifications specified to the post of Sub-Engineer stipulated in Schedule-II of the M.P. Municipal Corporations (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Officers and 21 Servants) Rules, 2000. According to the aforesaid, educational qualification was the same as prescribed for Government services (PHE Department). The appellant-Corporation passed the order dated 18.1.2017 cancelling the regularization of the employees after a period of 14 years. The said orders were assailed in the bunch of writ petitions on the grounds mentioned therein. One of the grounds to challenge the aforesaid order of de-regularization was that orders were passed on the substratum of seniority list prepared by the appellant Corporation vide order dated 28.10.2016, whereby technical and non-technical persons were placed at par thereby treating unequal, which was contrary to the service jurisprudence.
11. During the pendency of the aforesaid bunch of writ petitions, some of the employees got retired and many of them even died. The Writ Court vide order dated 9.3.2018 allowed the bunch of writ petitions with the lead case in WP No.1162/2017. The learned Single Judge considered the 22 relevant facts arising out of earlier orders passed in different writ petitions and appeals and discussed the grounds of roster, educational qualification, vacancy position and seniority, and held that the appellant-Corporation has not followed the roster for which the employees cannot be held responsible. The appellant-Corporation has not given the details of roster which the appellant-Corporation has not followed. The only statement was made in the order that the posts were reserved for SC/ST categories and the employees were not belonging to those categories. On this aspect it was held that for the fault of the Corporation for last many years, the regularization of the employees cannot be annulled on this ground particularly when the employees were appointed prior to 1988 and at this stage some of the employees have already died and many employees have retired from service. In respect of educational qualification, it was held that the employees fulfilled the qualifications. The qualifications were to be seen at the time of 23 initial appointment and not at the stage of regularization particularly after passage of so many years during which the employees have also acquired the experience on the said posts. In this way the appellant-Corporation cannot cancel the order of regularization on the ground that the employees did not possess the educational qualification. The reference has been made to Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, (1990) 1 SCC 361, Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and others Vs. Abahi Kumar and others, (2001) 3 SCC 328 and Prabhu Dayal Pandey Vs. M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board and another, 1998 JLJ 98. The employees were working prior to 1988 and had worked for considerable period of time, therefore at the time regularization of their services, the appellant-Corporation cannot reject their claim on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualification.
12. In respect of vacancy position, the learned Single Judge observed that in the very nature of employment, where 24 the employees were working in the appellant-Corporation would suggest that the work was available where the employees were working since their date of appointments and they were regularly paid their salaries, therefore the appellant-Corporation cannot turn around and say that there was no vacancy for regularization of the services of the employees. In respect of seniority position, the appellant-Corporation has failed to prepare the separate seniority list of technical and non-technical daily wage employees, the details of which have been given in preceding paras. By taking all the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge held that para 53 of the Uma Devi's case (supra) would protect the employees. In the aforesaid paragraph the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified that the regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on the judgment, but there should be no by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the 25 constitutional scheme. Perusal of the aforesaid para 53 would protect those employees whose regularization had already been done prior to pronouncement of Uma Devi's case (supra) and there was no lis pending in respect thereof. The regularization was done in case of the employees and therefore the department action only, which was in offing. If the departmental action is tested at the threshold of arguments raised by the department in respect of roster, educational qualification, vacancy position and seniority, the same would miserably fall. As per the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), the Union of India, the State Governments and other instrumentalities were directed to take steps to regularize as one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under the cover of orders of Courts or of Tribunals.
13. The Apex Court has further clarified that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not 26 be reopened on the basis of Uma Devi's case. The employees were regularized in the year 2003, therefore as per the observations made by the Honble Apex Court in Uma Devi's case (supra), the cases of the employees were not required to be reopened. The regularization of the employees made in the year 2015 were not under challenge in any court of law except in the departmental hierarchy. The services of the petitioners continuing since prior to the regularization i.e. 1988, 1989 and even prior thereto, the orders of regularization were cancelled by the Corporation. On challenge having been made to those orders, the orders are still in force till the impugned orders were passed on 18.1.2017. The employees have been working and have been paid their salaries at par with regular employees, therefore it would be presumed that the employees are still working against the vacant posts and having been regularized, they cannot be termed as illegal appointees whose services can be regularized in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex 27 Court in Uma Devi's case (supra). The learned Single Judge allowed the bunch of writ petitions, which have been assailed. In this bunch of appeals primarily on the same grounds as were discussed by the learned Single Judge. The aforesaid bunch of writ appeals have been admitted on the ground of roster system, lack of qualifications of the employees, non-availability of posts and the interpretation attached to Uma Devi's case (supra). The aforesaid points raised by the appellant- Corporation would negate the arguments raised by the appellant-Corporation.
14. Evidently, after appointments of the employees much prior to 1988 in first category and 1989 in the second category, the appellant-Corporation never resorted to roster position. The only arguments were made in respect of non- adherence to the reservation to the SC/ST category and also by alleging that the employees did not belong to the said posts, therefore their regularization were illegal. In the aforesaid 28 process, the employees were never at fault. The appellant- Corporation having not done so could not turn around and say that the regularization was bad on account of their own fault. Having worked against the salaries for more than 35 years, the appellant-Corporation is debarred from alleging the aforesaid grounds particularly when some of the employees have died and many more have retired from the job.
15. In respect of educational qualification, the appellant-Corporation itself has not finalized the seniority list of technical and non-technical staff. The employees have successfully deliberated the aforesaid issues with reference to the list prepared by the appellant-Corporation showing that the appellant-Corporation has merged the technical and non- technical staff even in the seniority list dated 29.10.2016 prepared in respect of technical and non-technical staff of the appellant-Corporation.
29
16. The vacancy position can be appreciated in the light of facts that the employees have been continuously working. The employees, who have already died, had also worked continuously. The employees already retired had also worked till their retirement, therefore it cannot be said that the employees had worked and have been working without there being any vacant post available. The employees had drawn their salaries and have been drawing their salaries against the work done on the posts on which they are working. The qualifications of the employees were to be seen at the time of their initial appointment. With the passage of time, even if they were not possessing any requisite qualifications, they have acquired the necessary qualifications by working on the posts for more than 35 years. The issue of educational qualification, vacancy and seniority can be summed up in the aforesaid manner. In view of para 53 of Uma Devi's case (supra), the cases of the employees, who have been working for more than 30 ten years and more can be regularized as one time measure as per the ratio of Uma Devi's case (supra). Even in para 53 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex court has clarified that the regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice need not be reopened, but there should be no by-passing of the constitutional requirement. In the light of perpetual litigation pending since long, this Court is of the opinion that there should be finality of controversy. The Hon'ble Apex Court has explained in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs Union of India and others, 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 779 by interpreting the maxim "interest Republicae ut sit finis litium"
i.e. the litigation must end after a long hierarchy of remedies at some time. At this stage it would be improper to allow the parties to further litigate in view of non-preparation of final seniority list by the appellant-Corporation in respect of technical and non-technical staff in the light of liberty granted by the Courts from time to time. The controversy between the 31 parties must come to an end at some stage and the judgment of the Court must be permitted to acquire finality. The appellant-
Corporation cannot be allowed to agitate the issue by resorting to one remedy after the other in the endless process. The finality of judgment is absolutely imperative and great sanctity is attached to it. It is an onerous duty of the Court to ensure that undue enrichment is not drawn by the losing party by invoking process of the Court, even after finality of some stage of litigation. While curbing the aforesaid tendency, the Court would be fully justified in resorting to punitive action when the legal process is found to have been abused. The doctrine of stare decisis is very valuable principle of precedent which cannot be departed in ordinary circumstances. In the instant case, the litigation started since long and after crossing different stages particularly the decisions were made by the Writ Courts in favour of the employees. The appellant-Corporation cannot be permitted to rake up the issue time and again in utter 32 disregard to the doctrine of stare decisis. The law laid down in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. Vs The Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur (1976) 4 SCC 124 and Green View Tea & Industries vs Collector, Golaghat and another, 2002(2) RCR (Civil) 362 can be relied in this context.
17. Since some of the employees have already died during the pendency of the litigation at different stages, they had worked till their death or retirement, though initial appointments of the employees were on work charged or daily wage basis, the fact remained through out that their services were always required and the duties assigned to them were of perpetual in nature. The employees continued to serve the department without any break. The non-regularization of the employees was a fact, which was not attributable to the employees and therefore the employees cannot be put to any disadvantage. It cannot be accepted that the employees, who remained in continuous employment for more than 30-35 years 33 would be still daily wage employees. The satisfactory work, conduct and availability of regular vacancies in the appellant- Corporation where the employees had rendered the work would show that clear vacancies were there against which salaries were drawn by the employees. Even by applying the ratio of Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi's case (supra), the employees are deemed to have acquired the status of regular employee after ten years of work charged or daily wage service. For the purposes of treating qualifying service of the employees, reference can be made to Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1988(5) SLR 27 (FB). The order dated 12.12.2014 passed in CWP No.25473/2014 by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration and another Vs. CAT Chandigarh and others can be relied in this context.
18. It is not disputed that the employees were appointed prior to 1988. Some of them have died and some of them have 34 retired, and many more are still in job. The plea of non- availability of regular sanctioned post cannot be appreciated in view of Anand Walia and others Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others, 2013(3) SLR 611, wherein the Court held as under:-
"9...... As far as availability of sanctioned posts is concerned, in my opinion, considering the fact that the petitioners had been working in the establishment for the last more than 12 years itself shows that the work available is of continuous nature. We are living in the era of technology. Every record is being computerised. HUDA is the only wholly controlled agency in the State for urbanisation. It has developed urban estates in almost all the cities of the State and is controlling lacs of plots.
The entire record thereof pertaining to ownership, transfer or payment of instalments etc. is required to be maintained. The job is not temporary in nature. The persons are required on regular basis......."35
19. In view of the aforesaid, it could not be countenanced that the posts were not regular in nature. The view expressed in Anand Walia' case (supra) was endorsed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in LPA No.1700/2015 titled 'Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others Vs. Chhabi Lal and others' decided on 10.10.2017. Special to Appeal No.1857/2018 was dismissed filed against the aforesaid judgment dated 10.10.2017 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
20. In the aforesaid controversy, the ratio of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2019) 10 SCC 516 can be relied, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the facts of the case was pleased to pass the following operative part of order in para 36 of its judgment:-
"36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged 36 establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularisation as others have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension."
21. In view of the aforesaid detailed reasons, we find that the grounds taken by the appellant-Corporation are totally 37 bereft of merits. Accordingly, the aforesaid writ appeals are dismissed. The appellant-Corporation is directed to consider the cases of all the employees at the threshold of their regularization, which was initially made. The cases of the deceased employees shall be considered in view of their legal dues and further entitlement of their wards for compassionate appointment, if any, in accordance with law. The cases of employees, who have already retired shall be considered for their retiral dues or pension, if any, in accordance with law. This Court on the basis of doctrine of finality reasonably believe that the appellant-Corporation shall put to an end the on going controversy on the maximum of "interest Republicae ut sit finis litium".
22. Let the needful be done by the appellant-
Corporation in time bound manner preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
38
23. A photocopy of this judgment be placed on the record of each writ appeal.
(Raj Mohan Singh) (Devnarayan Mishra)
Judge Judge
14/08/2024 14/08/2024
Ansari
MANZOOR AHMED
2024.08.17 13:11:37 +05'30'