NAND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(SC)-2014-2-76
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on
February 25,2014
NAND KUMAR
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF MYSORE VS. S V NARAYANAPPA [REFERRED TO]R N NANJUNDAPPA VS. T THIMMIAH [REFERRED TO]
B N NAGARAJAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
DHARWAD DISTT P W D LITERATE DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
AVAS VIKAS SANSTHAN VS. AVAS VIKAS SANSTHAN ENGINEERS ASSN [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. M L KESARI [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
JAGABHAI DHULABHAI BHATI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 [LAWS(GJH)-2015-10-285] [REFERRED]GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VS. PWD EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(GJH)-2014-7-36] [REFERRED TO]
HYDRO ELECTRIC EMPLOYEES UNION U.P. VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (I),U.P. ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-345] [REFERRED TO]
DITUL MEHTA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-10-99] [REFERRED TO]
RATNESWAR KUMAR VS. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER [LAWS(GAU)-2019-9-116] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISIONER [LAWS(DLH)-2022-10-100] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. RAJO [LAWS(DLH)-2022-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
HIMURJA AND ANOTHER VS. BIKRAM SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-73] [REFERRED TO]
A. GURUVAMMAL VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-371] [REFERRED TO]
P. DEIVENDRAN AND OTHERS VS. TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-1079] [REFERRED TO]
R.SENTHILKUMAR VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-238] [REFERRED TO]
S DHARMARAJ VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-818] [REFERRED TO]
P. SHANTHI VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-1028] [REFERRED TO]
E MARI VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-113] [REFERRED TO]
M. MAHALINGAM VS. ENGINEER IN CHIEF, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2017-12-399] [REFERRED TO]
VINODJI SATUJI DABHI VS. KIRAN PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2021-12-1282] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA KUMAR LAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
THE BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD (SENIOR SECONDARY), BUDDHA MARG, PATNA VS. ANUJ KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI RAGHUPATI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE [LAWS(PAT)-2016-5-167] [REFERRED TO]
JAWAHAR LAL RAM, SRI HIRAL LAL RAM VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2020-2-49] [REFERRED TO]
THAMBUSAMY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-588] [REFERRED TO]
A.RUBAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-272] [REFERRED TO]
K. SURESH AND OTHERS VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-1143] [REFERRED TO]
A.GLORY MARRY VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-196] [REFERRED TO]
M.LOGANATHAN VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-8-1002] [REFERRED TO]
DEVI PRASAD MISRA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-237] [REFERRED TO]
P.VENKATACHALAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-316] [REFERRED TO]
V.KARUPPASAMY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-315] [REFERRED TO]
K. SELVADURAI AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-1199] [REFERRED TO]
HARI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-2-51] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF MP & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
BINOY KUMAR SINHA VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2024-4-61] [REFERRED TO]
M/S VAJRA CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED VS. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(PAT)-2015-11-98] [REFERRED]
M SAKTHIVEL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
G.SEERALAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-243] [REFERRED TO]
JUNAGADH AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY VS. MOHAN RAMSHIBHAI KESHWALA [LAWS(GJH)-2021-6-352] [REFERRED TO]
SHEO NARAIN NAGAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-509] [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN DEVI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-7-79] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. ZAHIR ALAM VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR, U.P. INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION LTD. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-322] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. VINODJI SATUJI DABHI [LAWS(GJH)-2020-9-286] [REFERRED TO]
S. RAJENDRAN VS. SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-969] [REFERRED TO]
S.THANGADURAI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-589] [REFERRED TO]
R.KUMAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-428] [REFERRED TO]
D.RAMESHKUMAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-609] [REFERRED TO]
IQBAL HUSSEIN ABDULMIYA SHEIKH VS. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT, SABARKANTHA [LAWS(GJH)-2021-6-171] [REFERRED TO]
KANTABEN NANABHAI BHANGI (VALMIKI) VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 [LAWS(GJH)-2015-7-220] [REFERRED]
S SIVAMAHESWARI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-363] [REFERRED TO]
P.V.MURUGANANDAM VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-271] [REFERRED TO]
AROCKIA DOSS VS. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2017-9-203] [REFERRED TO]
B. NAGARAJAN VS. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-372] [REFERRED TO]
R.SHANKAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-317] [REFERRED TO]
R.SENTHILKUMAR VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-226] [REFERRED TO]
RAJULA MUNICIPALITY VS. BHAGUBHAI APABHAI DHAKHADA & 9 [LAWS(GJH)-2015-9-172] [REFERRED]
ANIL KUMAR VS. INDIAN AIRLINES CHAIRMAN [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-445] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA VS. GURU GHASIDAS UNIVERSITY [LAWS(CHH)-2023-3-86] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-77] [REFERRED TO]
BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT VS. MAHENDRA JASHVANTRAI DAVE [LAWS(GJH)-2016-7-69] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT MAZDOOR SABHA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-2-14] [REFERRED TO]
K GNANAVEL VS. GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY, REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-388] [REFERRED TO]
HUSSAIN A. VS. ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP [LAWS(KER)-2019-10-57] [REFERRED TO]
G.BALASUBRAMANIAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-244] [REFERRED TO]
DEO KANT CHOUDHARY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2020-2-105] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-285] [REFERRED TO]
V.MATHIYALAGAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-7-318] [REFERRED TO]
P. SANKAR VS. THE HOME SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-375] [REFERRED TO]
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP VS. M.HABEEBULLA [LAWS(KER)-2020-9-177] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGAVANJI BHULAJI THAKOR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-8-218] [REFERRED TO]
BALVANTSINH RAJUSINH RATHOD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-9-1470] [REFERRED TO]
VARSHA RAMESH CHAVAN AND ORS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2017-6-40] [REFERRED TO]
MANDEEP SUNWAR VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2017-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Six writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Patna which were taken up and disposed of by the High Court by a common order dated December 9, 2009. The High Court rejected the prayer made by the writ petitioners for absorption/regularisation in their posts.
(3.)The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows:
1. The appellants were appointed on daily wages. It is not in dispute that some of the appellants had also worked as daily wagers for a long period. It is also not in dispute that the services of said daily wagers varied from period to period. Nand Kumar, appellant, was appointed as an Accounts Clerk on daily wage basis on September 18, 1982. Similarly, others (appellants in civil appeals arising out of SLP [C] Nos.8865- 66/2010, 10876/2010, 20833-20835/2010 and 30317/2010) were also appointed, from time to time, and served as daily wagers. It is not in dispute that some of the appellants received monthly salary in the minimum pay scale with usual allowances.
2. In 2006, the State Legislature passed the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Repeal Act, 2006) with effect from September 1, 2006. As a result whereof, the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1960 and rules framed thereunder in the year 1975 stood repealed, save and except certain decisions rendered earlier as well as disciplinary proceedings initiated or pending against its employees were saved. It appears that in these appeals the appellants are not challenging the validity of the Repeal Act. The claim of the appellants is that they have worked on daily wage basis for a long period and cannot be relieved from service by virtue of Section 6 of the Repeal Act, 2006 and, furthermore, such decision is violative of the principles of natural justice and accordingly is arbitrary.
(2.)Six writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Patna which were taken up and disposed of by the High Court by a common order dated December 9, 2009. The High Court rejected the prayer made by the writ petitioners for absorption/regularisation in their posts.
(3.)The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows:
1. The appellants were appointed on daily wages. It is not in dispute that some of the appellants had also worked as daily wagers for a long period. It is also not in dispute that the services of said daily wagers varied from period to period. Nand Kumar, appellant, was appointed as an Accounts Clerk on daily wage basis on September 18, 1982. Similarly, others (appellants in civil appeals arising out of SLP [C] Nos.8865- 66/2010, 10876/2010, 20833-20835/2010 and 30317/2010) were also appointed, from time to time, and served as daily wagers. It is not in dispute that some of the appellants received monthly salary in the minimum pay scale with usual allowances.
2. In 2006, the State Legislature passed the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Repeal Act, 2006) with effect from September 1, 2006. As a result whereof, the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1960 and rules framed thereunder in the year 1975 stood repealed, save and except certain decisions rendered earlier as well as disciplinary proceedings initiated or pending against its employees were saved. It appears that in these appeals the appellants are not challenging the validity of the Repeal Act. The claim of the appellants is that they have worked on daily wage basis for a long period and cannot be relieved from service by virtue of Section 6 of the Repeal Act, 2006 and, furthermore, such decision is violative of the principles of natural justice and accordingly is arbitrary.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.