Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs Lekh Ram on 8 February, 2019
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1557-1564 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos. 16158-16165/2016)
HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
LEKH RAM ETC.ETC. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.
Leave granted.
These appeals arise from a judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 27 February 2016. They relate to eight employees, who have been regularized in the service of the Himachal Road Transport Corporation, the appellant before this Court. Details pertaining to these employees have been placed on the record in a chart submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, which we extract below:
Sr.No. Name of Desg./post Date of Date of Applicant Appointment Regularizati (on on Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by contract) SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2019.02.13 17:48:13 IST Reason: 1 Sh. Lekh Ram Clerk 20.12.2012 05.07.2017 2 Sh. Sunil Clerk 25.09.2012 05.07.2017 Dutt 3 Sh. Shankar Conductor 10.12.2012 05.07.2017 2 Sharma 4 Sh. Kulwant Clerk 07.08.2012 05.07.2017 Singh 5 Sh. Rattan Conductor 28.07.2012 05.07.2017 Lal 6 Sh. Ashwani Clerk 09.05.2013 05.07.2017 Kumar 7 Ms. Binesh Clerk 13.05.2013 05.07.2017 Devi 8 Sh. Parvez Clerk 30.08.2012 05.07.2017 Akhtar All the above employees are legal heirs of erstwhile employees of the appellant who retired on medical grounds during their tenure of service. One of them, Lekh Ram, moved the High Court complaining of being denied compassionate appointment under the policy of the appellant.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court, by an order dated 28 June 2011 issued a direction to the appellant in the following terms:
“9...the present petition is allowed and it is directed that the respondents shall take a decision to provide employment to the petitioner under the Kith and Kin Policy within a period of six months from today strictly as per the seniority of the petitioner as mentioned in the reply filed by respondent No.2.” In appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court, by its judgment and order dated 12 January 2012, affirmed the view of the learned Single Judge with the following observations:
“5. We are of the considered view that the case of the respondent was required to be 3 considered as per the policy in vogue at the time when his father retired on 20.10.2000. There is no contemporaneous material placed on record by the appellants-Corporation that in fact the instructions dated 15.07.2010 have been adopted by the Corporation. The appellant-
Corporation is a distinct legal entity and its affairs are run under the Road Transport Corporation Act. The Corporation has framed its kith and kin policy. In case it wants to follow any policy/guidelines issued by the State Government, the same is to be adopted in accordance with law. It was not necessary for the appellant-Corporation to seek approval of the State while offering appointment to the respondent under the kith and kin policy. There is no infirmity and illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.06.2011 and the same is upheld.” The matter was carried to this Court in a Special Leave Petition1 by the appellant . By an order dated 8 March 2013, this Court affirmed the view of the High Court in terms of the following order:
“These petitions are directed against orders dated 12.01.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court whereby the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the petitioner were dismissed and the orders passed by the learned Single Judge for consideration of the cases of private respondents for appointment in accordance with the kith and kin policy were upheld.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In our view, the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for directing the petitioner and other officers of Himachal Road Transport Corporation to implement the recommendations made by the Committee 1 [SLP(C) No.9359 of 2012] 4 constituted by the Corporation were legally correct and the Division Bench of the High Court rightly declined to interfere with the same.
With the above observations, the special leave petitions are dismissed. The petitioner is directed to implement the orders of the learned Single Judge within a period of four weeks from today.” On 20 December 2012, Lekh Ram was given contractual appointment by the appellant as a clerk, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings before this Court in another case filed before this Court by the appellant.
Eventually, as the chart extracted earlier indicates, Lekh Ram was regularized on 5 July 2017. The other seven employees were similarly appointed on contract under the policy of compassionate appointment. They have also been regularized on 5 July 2017.
The issue which now remains to be considered is as to whether these employees who have been regularized would be entitled to the benefit of the period since the date on which they were appointed on contractual terms until the date of regularization.
The order of the High Court dated 12 January 2012 was confirmed by this Court on 8 March 2013. The High Court specifically directed that the case of Lekh Ram had to be considered in accordance with the policy in existence on 20 October 2000 when his father retired from service.
Before us, it has not been disputed that the policy which was in existence then did not stipulate the making of 5 such an appointment on contract. Lekh Ram, as an eligible employee whose claim for compassionate appointment had been accepted by the appellant, was entitled to be appointed as a regular employee. The case of the other seven employees stands on the same footing. The appellant was manifestly in error in appointing them on contractual terms. This was not in accordance with the policy which was to be applied in terms of the judgment of the High Court, as affirmed by this Court. All the employees continued to work from the initial date of their appointment in 2012-13 on a contractual basis and even thereafter when they were regularized. Under the judgment of the High Court, as affirmed by this Court and the governing policy, they were entitled to regular appointment.
In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate to order and direct that each of the eight employees to whom these appeals relate would be entitled to the benefit of all the regular terms and conditions of service with effect from the initial dates of their appointment on contractual terms, as indicated in the chart extracted above. The above period of service shall also be reckoned for seniority and for terminal benefits as and when they fall due. Arrears of salary payable to the respondents on this basis shall be computed and paid over within two months from the date of this order. 6
The appeals shall stand disposed of in these terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
.............................J. (DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD) .............................J. (HEMANT GUPTA) NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 08, 2019 7 ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1557-1564 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C)Nos. 16158-16165/2016) HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION APPELLANT(S) VERSUS LEKH RAM ETC.ETC. RESPONDENT(S) Date : 08-02-2019 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Suryanaryana Singh, Adv.
Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR Ms. Kaveri Vats, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Aravindh S., AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals shall stand disposed of in terms of the signed reportable judgment.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)