STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. KAMAL PRASAD
LAWS(SC)-2014-4-65
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: JHARKHAND)
Decided on
April 23,2014
STATE OF JHARKHAND
Appellant
VERSUS
Kamal Prasad
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
PRITAM SINGH VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]AMRIT LAL BERRY K N KAPUR VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE NEW DELHI:COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE CENTRAL REVENUE [REFERRED TO]
OLGA TELLIS VAYYAPVRI KUPPUSAMI VS. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
JAMSHED HORMUSHJI WADIA VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES PORT OF MUMBAI [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. POORAN CHANDRA PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
MATHAI ALIAS JOBY VS. GEORGE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. M L KESARI [REFERRED TO]
Ram Swarath Prasad VS. State Of Jharkhand [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
G. P. SAROJAMMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-3-137] [REFERRED TO]R. GEETHA DEVI VS. SOMALAL T.M. AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-6-80] [REFERRED TO]
UMESH CHAND JAIN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-217] [REFERRED TO]
TARAK BHATTACHARYA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2024-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANT MEHTA VS. NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-5-125] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA KUMARI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-2-74] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN BHARADWAJ VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
TUKARAM S/O LATE SHRI CHUNNU RAM SAHU VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH THE SECRETARY [LAWS(CHH)-2017-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. APARNA MANNA & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2018-1-463] [REFERRED TO]
P. SASIKALA AND ORS. VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-540] [REFERRED TO]
SENGTENG CH. MARAK VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2019-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
IMRAN KHAN VS. ENERGY DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MPH)-2016-4-101] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER REDDY VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-12-48] [REFERRED TO]
DAITARY MUKHI VS. G M (P & A), OMC LTD , BHUBANESWAR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ORI)-2017-11-71] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTHI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKALABIC [LAWS(KAR)-2018-10-362] [REFERRED TO]
JAMAN SINGH BISHT VS. U.P. RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-26] [REFERRED]
SHREE HARI AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD VS. DEEPAK VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2015-9-93] [REFERRED]
BISHWONATH BEHERA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2020-2-66] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMIBAI VS. COLLECTOR [LAWS(SC)-2020-2-56] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. BALWINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2022-12-155] [REFERRED TO]
D.UPPALAIAH VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-12-66] [REFERRED TO]
KALYANI PATTNAIK VS. REGISTRAR, UTKAL UNIVERSITY [LAWS(ORI)-2019-12-41] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS VS. TAPAN KUMAR MOHANTY AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ORI)-2017-7-97] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. PURAVBI MUKHERJEE (GHOSH) VS. THE KOLKATA IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2017-1-87] [REFERRED TO]
RAM DAYAL LAKHERA AND 2 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-238] [REFERRED TO]
YOGENDRA KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-221] [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN DEVI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-7-79] [REFERRED TO]
JOLLY P.G. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-11-174] [REFERRED TO]
M. SHANMUGAM VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2023-1-210] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR NAGPAL VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-8-108] [REFERRED TO]
KAPIL DEO SINGH YADAV SON OF LATE RAJHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-12-92] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-10-91] [REFERRED TO]
DR. AULIE BANERJEE VS. MAULANA ABUL KALAM AZAD UNIVERSITY [LAWS(CAL)-2019-12-33] [REFERRED TO]
MANIPATI LINGAM VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
BHUWAN CHANDRA PANDEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(UTN)-2020-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KRISHNA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD. VS. K. HANUMANTHA RAO AND ANOTHER [LAWS(SC)-2016-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR E K AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2017-8-157] [REFERRED TO]
AXAYKUMAR TULSIDAS PATEL VS. GUJARAT VIDYAPITH [LAWS(GJH)-2023-4-484] [REFERRED TO]
NAVINKUMAR KANHAIYALAL KHATRI VS. GUJARAT VIDYAPITH [LAWS(GJH)-2023-4-350] [REFERRED TO]
KHAGENDRA NATH SAU VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-12-32] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMIKANT KOKA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-9-130] [REFERRED TO]
MANGAL SINGH VS. CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2024-3-77] [REFERRED TO]
SHAFI O.P. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2016-6-129] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR DOHAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-11-280] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS VS. TAPAS CHAKRABORTY & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2019-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
CALCUTTA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYS KARMACHARI UNION VS. CALCUTTA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(CAL)-2015-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
PADMANAVA PRADHAN VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2020-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. -
(1.)LEAVE granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
(2.)THESE Civil Appeals are filed by the appellant -State of Jharkhand questioning the legality of the impugned judgment and order dated 08.11.2011 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in Letters Patent Appeal No. 256 of 2011 and connected cases which allowed the appeals of the respondent -writ petitioners by setting aside the judgment dated 25.07.2011 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the writ petitions of the respondent -employees were dismissed and the Interlocutory Application No. 3223 of 2011 was allowed after quashing the show cause notices issued and orders of termination of services of the respondent -employees. The Division Bench of the High Court by framing certain substantial questions of law has held that the respondents herein shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits. The appellants being aggrieved of the impugned judgment and orders have filed these Civil Appeals by urging various facts and legal grounds in support of the same and prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and orders by allowing the Civil Appeals.
Certain relevant facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties with a view to examine the correctness of the findings and reasons recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment and further to find out as to whether the impugned judgment and orders warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in these Civil Appeals.
(3.)THE respondent -employees (the writ petitioners before the High Court), were initially appointed in the year 1981 in the posts of Junior Engineers in the Rural Development Department in the erstwhile State of Bihar in respect of which the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission (for short ''the BPSC '') was not required. It is the case of the respondent -employees that they have continuously discharged their duties in the above posts honestly and diligently to the satisfaction of their employer. They were subsequently appointed on ad -hoc temporary basis as Assistant Engineers in the pay -scales of [pic]1000 -50 -1700 P.Ro -10 -1820/ -, with certain conditions on the basis of recommendation made by the BPSC against temporary posts from the date of notification. Their services as Assistant Engineers on ad -hoc basis were entrusted to work in the Road Construction Department where they were required to contribute their work within the stipulated period. The relevant condition No. 2 in the said notification No. Work/G/1 -402/87,248/(S) Patna dated 27.6.1987 is extracted hereunder: -
''1. XXX XXX XXX 2. This ad -hoc appointment shall be dependent on approval of Bihar Public Service Commission. 3. XXX XXX XXX ... ... ''
It is their further case that they have been working in the said posts for more than 29 years from the date of first appointment as Junior Engineers and 23 years from the appointment in the posts of Assistant Engineers on ad -hoc basis. Neither the BPSC nor Bihar State Government nor Jharkhand State Government had intention to dispense with the services of these employees. Therefore, they did not take steps to dispense with their services from their posts. The employees approached the High Court when they were issued the show cause notices dated 20.4.2010 by the appellant No.3. After taking substantial work from the respondent -employees they have been harassed by issuing show cause notices asking them to show cause as to why their services should not be terminated on the ground of their appointment to the posts as illegal/invalid. Their appointments were, however, not held to be invalid either by the orders of the High Court or Supreme Court in spite of the fact that 199 posts filled up by advertisement No.128/1996 issued by the BPSC dated 2.9.1996 as the same would not affect the respondent -employees who otherwise have been in continuous service for more than 23 years in the substantial posts of Road Construction Department and not of Rural Engineering/Rural Works Department. Therefore, it was pleaded by them that the impugned notices issued to them was an empty formality with preconceived decision and the same is also not only discriminatory but also suffers from legal malafides, arbitrariness, unreasonableness and is in utter transgression of the interim order dated 22.3.2010 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1001 of 2010 amounting to overreaching the majesty of the High Court.
(2.)THESE Civil Appeals are filed by the appellant -State of Jharkhand questioning the legality of the impugned judgment and order dated 08.11.2011 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in Letters Patent Appeal No. 256 of 2011 and connected cases which allowed the appeals of the respondent -writ petitioners by setting aside the judgment dated 25.07.2011 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the writ petitions of the respondent -employees were dismissed and the Interlocutory Application No. 3223 of 2011 was allowed after quashing the show cause notices issued and orders of termination of services of the respondent -employees. The Division Bench of the High Court by framing certain substantial questions of law has held that the respondents herein shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits. The appellants being aggrieved of the impugned judgment and orders have filed these Civil Appeals by urging various facts and legal grounds in support of the same and prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and orders by allowing the Civil Appeals.
Certain relevant facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties with a view to examine the correctness of the findings and reasons recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment and further to find out as to whether the impugned judgment and orders warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in these Civil Appeals.
(3.)THE respondent -employees (the writ petitioners before the High Court), were initially appointed in the year 1981 in the posts of Junior Engineers in the Rural Development Department in the erstwhile State of Bihar in respect of which the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission (for short ''the BPSC '') was not required. It is the case of the respondent -employees that they have continuously discharged their duties in the above posts honestly and diligently to the satisfaction of their employer. They were subsequently appointed on ad -hoc temporary basis as Assistant Engineers in the pay -scales of [pic]1000 -50 -1700 P.Ro -10 -1820/ -, with certain conditions on the basis of recommendation made by the BPSC against temporary posts from the date of notification. Their services as Assistant Engineers on ad -hoc basis were entrusted to work in the Road Construction Department where they were required to contribute their work within the stipulated period. The relevant condition No. 2 in the said notification No. Work/G/1 -402/87,248/(S) Patna dated 27.6.1987 is extracted hereunder: -
''1. XXX XXX XXX 2. This ad -hoc appointment shall be dependent on approval of Bihar Public Service Commission. 3. XXX XXX XXX ... ... ''
It is their further case that they have been working in the said posts for more than 29 years from the date of first appointment as Junior Engineers and 23 years from the appointment in the posts of Assistant Engineers on ad -hoc basis. Neither the BPSC nor Bihar State Government nor Jharkhand State Government had intention to dispense with the services of these employees. Therefore, they did not take steps to dispense with their services from their posts. The employees approached the High Court when they were issued the show cause notices dated 20.4.2010 by the appellant No.3. After taking substantial work from the respondent -employees they have been harassed by issuing show cause notices asking them to show cause as to why their services should not be terminated on the ground of their appointment to the posts as illegal/invalid. Their appointments were, however, not held to be invalid either by the orders of the High Court or Supreme Court in spite of the fact that 199 posts filled up by advertisement No.128/1996 issued by the BPSC dated 2.9.1996 as the same would not affect the respondent -employees who otherwise have been in continuous service for more than 23 years in the substantial posts of Road Construction Department and not of Rural Engineering/Rural Works Department. Therefore, it was pleaded by them that the impugned notices issued to them was an empty formality with preconceived decision and the same is also not only discriminatory but also suffers from legal malafides, arbitrariness, unreasonableness and is in utter transgression of the interim order dated 22.3.2010 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1001 of 2010 amounting to overreaching the majesty of the High Court.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.