LexAVAS VIKAS SANSTHAN AND ANR. versus AVAS VIKAS SANSTHAN ENGINEERS ASSN. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B AV AS VIKAS SANS THAN AND ANR. v. AVAS VIKAS SANSTHAN ENGINEERS ASSN. AND ORS. MARCH 28, 2006 [H.K. SEMA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] Constitution of lndia, 1950·-Articles 12 and 14--Contruct Act, 1872- Section 23--State Government dissolved a State Society incurring heavy C losses--Employees of the Society filed Writ Petition before High Court contending that the Society was an agent of the State and hence their services could not terminated being government employees-State formulated a Scheme of providing alternative employment to the employees in various local bodies subject to certain terms and conditions upon filing of an afjidavit- Employees accepted alternative employment and filed affidavits-Single Judge D of the High Court quashed the scheme of providing alternative emp/vyment-· Division Bench of the High Court set aside order of the Single Judge--High Court. however, directed the State to give pay protection, continuity of past service for pensionarylretiral benefits and the benefit of 5th Pay Commission on notional basis to the employees··-High Court also treated daily wagers E as regular appointees and made available the benefits given to regular employees--Correctness of-Held, State has the power to abolish posts--Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus to the State to continue with the services of the employees-On facts, employees are estoppedfrom claiming the benefits and challenging the terms and condititons of the Scheme since they have accepted the Scheme and filed affidavits-There is also no pleading in the F Writ Petition that the terms and conditions of the Scheme are contrary to the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 or is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of fndia-Hence the employees cannot claim the benefit of pay protection, continuity in service and the benefit under the 5th Pay Commission-- Daily wagers cannot be put on par with regular employees under any law and G hence no relief is granted to them-State, however, may sympathetically consider absorption subject to the conditions laid down. H Appellant No. I-a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was formed as a result ofa Scheme formulated by Housing and Urban Development Corporation to set up a chain of building centres in 516 - AVAS VJKAS SANSTHAN 1•. AVAS VIKAS SANSTHAN ENGINEERS ASSN. 5 J 7 the State. After a few years, the Society incurred heavy losses and it could A not pay salaries to its employees. State Government took a decision to dissolve the Society. Employees of the Society filed Writ Petitions before High Court challenging the action of the State and the Housing Board contending that their services could not be terminated since the Society was an agent of the B State and the State Housing Board and hence, the termination orders, if any, passed be quashed and they be retained in service with benefit of their past services; and that the order of the State to take them into service in the local bodies of the State at the lowest grade of services without any benefit of past services be quashed. The State and its Housing Board contended in the Writ C Petition that the Society was not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India since it was neither financially nor administratively controlled by the State. During the pendency of the Writ Petitions before the High Court, the State offered alternative employment in various local bodies of ihe D State subject to filing of an affidavit accepting the terms and conditions. The employees accepted the terms and conditions and filed !lffidavits. Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition of the employees. The High Court directed the State to pay unpaid salaries to the employees. The High Court also directed the State Housing Board to E create a new cell and take the employees into it and quashed the policy of the State Government to give alternative employment in various local bodies. The State Government, Housing Board and the Society filed appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. The employees also filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court F maintained the direction of payment of unpaid salary to the employees but set aside the quashing of the policy of the State of providing alternative employment in various local bodies. The High Court, however, directed the State to give pay protection; continuity of past servic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.