Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

employees were placed in the regular pay scale applicable to the posts to which they came to be appointed;

(G) The services of the respondent - employees, from the date of their initial appointments, has been taken into consideration for various service benefits, including increments, leave, transfer, opening of GPF account, opening of service book, pension etc. (H) The services of the respondent - employees, from the date of their initial appointments, however, do not appear to have been taken into consideration for purposes of seniority or functional promotion;

27] The aforesaid expression in GR dated 1 December 1994 does not in so many terms state that the services of the employees covered under the GR are being regularised with effect from the date of the GR and that the services rendered prior to the said date will not be regarded as 'regular service' for any purposes whatsoever. Therefore, at least the plain reading of the GR, does not fully support the construction suggested by Mr. Kumbhakoni. Rather, the expression makes use of the past tense i.e. 'regularised', lending support to the construction that the past services were also intended to be regularised. Similarly, the use of the expression 'should be treated as' once again lends support to the construction that the past services were intended to be treated as regularised. The use of the past tense coupled with the fiction introduced, at least does not render the view taken by the MAT as grossly erroneous or untenable. In matters of interpretation, the use of past tense is required to be assigned some meaning. So also, it is fairly well settled that the deeming provision may be intended to enlarge the meaning of a particular word or to include matters which otherwise may or may not fall within the main 25 of 50 skc 26 JUDGMENT-WP-9051-13-GROUP provision. The effect of such fiction is also quite well known. If one is bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, then one must, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real, the consequences and the incidents which inevitably flow from such a situation. One must not permit ones imagination to boggle when it comes to inevitable corollaries of the state of affairs.13 28] The GR dated 1 December 1994 makes no special provisions as to the manner in which the services of the employees covered under the GR, prior to 1 December 1994 are to be treated for various purposes, other than seniority. However, when it comes to the aspect of seniority, the GR dated 1 December 1994, in terms provides that the relevant date shall be 1 December 1994. This is significant, because if the intention was to treat the date 1 December 1994 as relevant for all purposes like increments, pay scale, pension, TBPS, ACPS etc., then there was no necessity to make special provisions in the matter of treatment to be accorded to such service, when it comes to determination of seniority. The circumstance that special provision has been made in the matter of determination of seniority, lends support to the interpretation that there was no bar to the taking into consideration of service prior to 1 December 1994 as 'regular service' for purposes of TBPS and /or ACPS. The State Government has itself adopted such interpretation in respect of several of its employees. In any case, the State Government has accepted the decisions of the MAT based on such interpretation in case of several of its employees, since, not all the decisions rendered by the MAT were challenged by the State Government before this Court. Further, the State Government has also not challenged the decision of this Court in the case of Sushma Kumar Arya (supra) even after its challenge to the decisions of this 13 East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. Vs. finsbury Borough Council -1951 (2) ALL ER 587 and M. Venugopal V. Divisional Manager, LIC - (1994) 2 SCC 323 26 of 50 skc 27 JUDGMENT-WP-9051-13-GROUP Court in case of Nanda Chavan (supra) and connected matters failed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

".... it is a maxim of law, recognised and established, that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong; and this maxim, which is based on elementary principles, is fully recognized in courts of law and of equity, and, indeed, admits of illustration from every branch of legal procedure19"

48] In Pratap Kishore Panda vs. Agni Charan Das20, the issue arose as to whether the grant of benefit of regularisation to employees who were recruited without involving Orissa Public Service Commission (OPSC) was legal and valid, considering in particular, the decision of the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi21, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after adverting to the fact situation ruled that such regularisation from the date of initial appointment was legal and valid, particularly since the recruitment made was neither capricious nor arbitrary, even though, the OPSC was not involved in the recruitment process. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that this was not a case of ad hoc employees being selected in a whimsical, inconsistent or haphazard manner or in order to favour some individuals. The incumbents were sponsored by employment exchange and over 400 candidates were found suitable by duly constituted selection committee which interviewed them. It 19 M/s. Mideast Integrated Steel Limited and anr. Vs. State of Odisha - W.P.(C) No. 17403 of 2012 decided on 16-12-2015, by Division Bench comprising Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. D.H. Waghela and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Biswanath Rath 20 2016 (2) ALL MR 461 (S.C.) 21 (2006) 4 SCC 1 47 of 50 skc 48 JUDGMENT-WP-9051-13-GROUP was not a relaxation of the rules in order to favour a few, but was the consequence of following an alternate method of selection intended to remedy a malady in the recruitment of SC/ST candidates. The sponsorship of employment exchange and subsequent interview by a duly constituted selection committee was itself a valid alternate for recruitment by way of OPSC competitive examination. For this purpose, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also made reference to the provisions contained in Article 320(4) of the Constitution of India and Section 9 (4) of O.R.V. Act. In this batch of petitions also, we are concerned with the appointment of respondents employees appointed to permanent, clear, substantive and sanctioned vacancies, though on temporary basis consequent upon sponsorship of their names by employment exchange and in pursuance of selection process which was fair, transparent and above board. Such respondent - employees, right from the date of their initial appointment have been extended benefits of regular pay scale, increments, leave, transfer, GPF etc. The services of such respondent - employees from the date of their initial appointment has been taken into consideration for practically all purposes, including pensionary benefits (except perhaps seniority).