Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986
In fact, the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench in Abdul Haque
Abbasi (supra) neither had the occasion to discuss the unconscionable covenant
with reference to the ratio in Brojo Nath Ganguly (supra) nor it had any occasion
to discuss the quantum meruit doctrine. As earlier noted, the group headed by
Abdul Haque Abbasi were categorized as illegal appointees whereas the litigants
in the present case, were placed in the irregular category, by the Manoharan
Committee. That apart, the service of the petitioners were regularized on the
basis of the 1st Cabinet decision dated 21.2.2000 whereas the group categorized
as illegal appointees, were the beneficiaries of the 2nd Cabinet decision
announced 5 years later, on 24.2.2005. Thus there are vital distinction between
the two groups under consideration. Moreover no binding precedent was laid
down in the earlier judgment. Thus the conclusion in that case does not in my
opinion call for a review of the favourable verdict in the WP(C) No.5286/2004.