Maize Breeder & Anr. Vs. Silar Bee
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 9235/1996
With C.A. No. 9246/1996
With C.A. No. 9246/1996
Petitioner: Maize Breeder & Anr.
Respondent: Silar Bee
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 9235/1996
With C.A. No. 9246/1996
With C.A. No. 9246/1996
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 23, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW/PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Constitution
Articles 226, 136 – Regularisation – Initial directions to consider the case for absorption – No action – Second writ – High Court directing regularisation in post of mazdoor or equivalent post under category IV – Division bench granting benefits like seniority, increment and continuous appointment – Justification. Held that High Court should not have granted reliefs not sought for. However, benefits to flow from date of first writ i.e. 18.12.91. Orders to that extent modified, otherwise interference declined. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
C.A. No. 9235/1996
1. The respondent before us made a claim that her case for regularisation in the service of the appellants be considered in writ petition no.17738/1988 which was allowed on 18.12.91. The writ petition was disposed of directing the appellants to consider the request of the respondent for absorption in an equivalent post in the agriculture university. Inasmuch as no action was taken thereto, another writ petition no. 6536/1995 was filed which was allowed by directing the appellants to regularise the services of the respondent in the post of mazdoor or any equivalent post coming under category IV within the stipulated time, subject to the condition of bearing in mind the financial constraints of the university along with certain other incidental directions.
2. An appeal was carried by the appellants to the division bench. The division bench, however, made the following order :
“ If we are not making any order for payment of difference of back wages to the writ petitioner-respondent, we are doing so only because we do not have the proper pleadings and full disclosure of facts in this behalf. While we affirm the direction of the learned single judge, we order further that the appellants shall treat the continuous appointment of the writ petitioner-respondent as substantive appointment for the purpose of seniority, increments in the scale of pay for the purpose of fitment in grade IV under its employment and for the purpose of promotion and terminal benefits. The writ petitioner-respondent shall be entitled to such benefits with effect from 18.12.1991 on which date writ petition no.17738 of 1988 was allowed by this Court and appropriate directions in this behalf were issued. With the modifications and directions as above, appeal is dismissed with costs ”
3. Hence this appeal by special leave. This is not a case in which we should interfere with the direction for regularisation of services. However, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that on the facts of the case there is no reason to continue the respondent in employment inasmuch as the nature of the work that was entrusted to her was casual and the appellants being engaged in agricultural activities did not have work for the whole year. This contention is dependent purely on facts and the High Court at two levels, having examined and given the benefit, we cannot re-examine this aspect. Fact remains that she had been employed right from the year 1966. There was one round of litigation ending on 18-12-1991 and thereafter another round of litigation had been started by her. On the facts of this case, the view taken by the High Court is correct and no interference is called for. Subsequently, it appears that her services had been regularised with effect from 01-12-1995, subject to the result of this appeal. It is also brought to our notice that in respect of similar employees there is separate scheme under which those employees have been considered for regularisation in service.
4. The case of the respondent herself was not a claim for continuous appointment with seniority, increments in the scale of pay which the High Court has granted. Such a relief when not sought for, could not have been granted by the High Court. However, inasmuch as the High Court has given a direction in writ petition no.17738/1988 on 18-12-1991, it is but proper that the benefit should flow to her at least from that date. That part of the order made by the High Court should be sustained. Subject to this modification of the order of the division bench of the High Court, we dismiss this appeal.
C.A. No. 9246/1996
5. Two respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking for a direction to consider their claim for regularization in service. Inasmuch as respondent no.1, V. Sattamma having attained the age of superannuation we are no longer concerned with her matter. So far as respondent no.2 is concerned, it appears that her services have been regularised with effect from 26-06-2001. In the circumstances, we do not think there is any need to examine the matter in detail. The appeal is disposed of noticing this position.
C.A. No. 9235/1996
1. The respondent before us made a claim that her case for regularisation in the service of the appellants be considered in writ petition no.17738/1988 which was allowed on 18.12.91. The writ petition was disposed of directing the appellants to consider the request of the respondent for absorption in an equivalent post in the agriculture university. Inasmuch as no action was taken thereto, another writ petition no. 6536/1995 was filed which was allowed by directing the appellants to regularise the services of the respondent in the post of mazdoor or any equivalent post coming under category IV within the stipulated time, subject to the condition of bearing in mind the financial constraints of the university along with certain other incidental directions.
2. An appeal was carried by the appellants to the division bench. The division bench, however, made the following order :
“ If we are not making any order for payment of difference of back wages to the writ petitioner-respondent, we are doing so only because we do not have the proper pleadings and full disclosure of facts in this behalf. While we affirm the direction of the learned single judge, we order further that the appellants shall treat the continuous appointment of the writ petitioner-respondent as substantive appointment for the purpose of seniority, increments in the scale of pay for the purpose of fitment in grade IV under its employment and for the purpose of promotion and terminal benefits. The writ petitioner-respondent shall be entitled to such benefits with effect from 18.12.1991 on which date writ petition no.17738 of 1988 was allowed by this Court and appropriate directions in this behalf were issued. With the modifications and directions as above, appeal is dismissed with costs ”
3. Hence this appeal by special leave. This is not a case in which we should interfere with the direction for regularisation of services. However, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that on the facts of the case there is no reason to continue the respondent in employment inasmuch as the nature of the work that was entrusted to her was casual and the appellants being engaged in agricultural activities did not have work for the whole year. This contention is dependent purely on facts and the High Court at two levels, having examined and given the benefit, we cannot re-examine this aspect. Fact remains that she had been employed right from the year 1966. There was one round of litigation ending on 18-12-1991 and thereafter another round of litigation had been started by her. On the facts of this case, the view taken by the High Court is correct and no interference is called for. Subsequently, it appears that her services had been regularised with effect from 01-12-1995, subject to the result of this appeal. It is also brought to our notice that in respect of similar employees there is separate scheme under which those employees have been considered for regularisation in service.
4. The case of the respondent herself was not a claim for continuous appointment with seniority, increments in the scale of pay which the High Court has granted. Such a relief when not sought for, could not have been granted by the High Court. However, inasmuch as the High Court has given a direction in writ petition no.17738/1988 on 18-12-1991, it is but proper that the benefit should flow to her at least from that date. That part of the order made by the High Court should be sustained. Subject to this modification of the order of the division bench of the High Court, we dismiss this appeal.
C.A. No. 9246/1996
5. Two respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking for a direction to consider their claim for regularization in service. Inasmuch as respondent no.1, V. Sattamma having attained the age of superannuation we are no longer concerned with her matter. So far as respondent no.2 is concerned, it appears that her services have been regularised with effect from 26-06-2001. In the circumstances, we do not think there is any need to examine the matter in detail. The appeal is disposed of noticing this position.
