STATE OF HARYANA Vs. POLU RAM
LAWS(SC)-2006-7-140
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on July 11,2006

STATE OF HARYANA Appellant
VERSUS
Polu Ram Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR VS. ANTONY [LAWS(CAL)-2022-7-140] [REFERRED TO]
HARISH KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2013-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAM ASRA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-1-205] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAMAKANT [LAWS(ALL)-2014-3-8] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)R .Ps (C) Nos. 287-88 of 2001 in S.L.Ps (C) Nos. 18903-904 of 1998 dismissed.
(2.)THE application for intervention and clarification/modification of the court's order and impleadment as party respondent dismissed.
The State of Haryana is the appellant before us. C.A. No. 1143 of 2005 was filed against the judgment and final order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dtd. 17/4/1998 in Polu Ram Vs. State of Haryana by which the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents. The judgment of the High Court was challenged by the State of Haryana on various grounds. According to the State, the respondents are not entitled to continue on the post after expiry of specified period and that they were appointed on a fixed term on a stopgap arrangement. It is further submitted that the High Court was in error in directing the State of Haryana to take the services of the respondents till the availability of regularly appointed candidates. Several other grounds have also been urged in the appeal. Notice was issued in the matter on 3/8/1998 and certain directions in regard to the payment of salary to the respondents were issued. During the pendency of these batch of appeals, several other interim directions were also issued. On 7/9/2005, this Court passed the following order:

"The issue arising for decision in these matters is the same as forming the subject-matter of reference order dtd. 23/8/2005 in State of Haryana Vs. Charanjit Singh? whereby the matter has been referred to a larger Bench. Let the decision of the larger Bench in those matters be awaited. All the pending applications will be taken up for consideration at the time of final hearing."

(3.)IT is now brought to our notice that a Constitution Bench in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, has delivered the judgment. The Constitution Bench has elaborately considered the rival claims of both the parties and rendered a detailed judgment on all aspects of the matter. In view of the Constitution Bench judgment in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, the appeals filed by the State of Haryana have to be allowed as prayed for. The same are accordingly allowed.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.