B. L. MANDAWAT AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 575 · Decided: 17-08-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

B. L. MANDAWAT AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .. 
AUGUST 17, 1993 
[R.M. SAHAI AND N. VENKATACHALA, J.J.] 
Abs01ption-Transfer of Rajasthan Atomic Power Project School to 
the Atomic Energy Education Society-Wlit filed by teachers of RAPP School 
dismissed upon assurance by govemment that it will find approp1iate employ-
ment for them-Held, AEE Society cannot go back on the assura11ci:-Ab-
so1ptio11 of Petitioner/teacher directed. 
The petitioner joined the R<\PP School in 1972, and was promoted 
as a Trained Graduate Teacher in 1983. She had an unquestionable service 
record. 
The Central Government desired that the R<\PP School which was 
run by the Department of Atomic Energy should be transferred to the AEE 
Society, so as to enable the latter to run it independently of the Department 
of Atomic Energy, with its readiness to meet the whole expenditure to be 
A 
B 
c 
incurred by the AEE Society in running that school. 
E 
In 1981, one of the teachers of the RAPP School filed a petition in 
this Court, apprehending retrenchment. The petitioner got impleaded in 
1984. On 27th July, 1984, the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, 
Department of Atomic Energy, sent a letter to the f!'Spondents' counsel 
which was placed for consideration of this Court. It was stated therein, F 
that retrenchment compensation would be paid to teachers and other 
employees on closure, and that the Government of India in the Department 
of Atomic Energy will use their good offices with the Atomic Energy 
Education Society which is substantially financed by the Government, to 
help find appropriate employment to the petitioners and other teachers of G 
the R<\PP Higher Secondary School (English Medium) protecting their 
existing designation, grade, pay and allowances. 
On the basis of this assurance, this Court dismissed the case on 8th 
May, 1987. On 10th August, 1987, this Court dismissed a contempt petition 
directing the respondents to consider the possibility to absorb the H 
575 
576 < 
' SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A 
petitioners in accordance. "ith law:.On 25th April, 1988, the Additional 
Solicitor General ga,·e an undertakinj)o the Court that the live petitioners 
therein would be absorbed on the foutiilgofthe-others. This assurance was 
re>tated in this Court's order dated 10th l\lay 1988. On 6th September, 
1988, the order of this Court recorded . the ASG's assurance that the 
B petitioner could appear before the selection committed which would con-
sider their case objectively, dispassionately and s)mpathetically. On 4th 
Au~~st, 1989, the Chief Administrative Officer, disregarding the assurance 
of the respondents,. sent a letter regarding refund of pension to AEE 
. · .. Society by those paid retrenchment and other terminal benefits for having 
served in the RAPP School. 
c 
. 
. 
. 
. 
\ 
In the meantime, by letter dated 3rd August 1987, the services of the 
petitioner. were terminated upon payment of. three months' wages alld 
compensation as per the rules. This was also the date when the RAPP 
Higher Secondary (English Medium) Scholl! was closed. 
D 
In this application, the petitioner prayed for a direction to the 
respondents to fulfil the assurance of her absorption in service of the AEE 
Society Schools, which are run by the AEE Society. 
The respondents contended that. since this Court dismissed the \lTit 
E petition on merits, there was no obligation on the AEE Society, an 
autonomous society which is independent from the Central Government to 
absorb the petitioner as a teacher in its RAPP School after the same was 
transferred to it by the Central Government, and that in any event, the . 
petitioner had not satisfied the requirement of 50 per cent marks at the 
- interview to be absorbed in the School. 
F 
·-, .. '·.Allowing the petition, this Court 
HELD : 1. This Court dismissed the main mil petition on the basis 
of an assurance contained in the letter dated 27th July, 1984 given to the -
G , Court, thus pa)ing the way for. the AEE Society to take over the manage-
. ment.of the School in which the petitioner was a teacher. (585-F·G) 
The .Court in its subsequent orders sought to impress upon the 
. respondent the need to fulfil their obligation of absorption of the 
petitioner and others similarly situated in the schools of the AEE Society, 
H and nowhere relieved it of its obligation to absorb the teachers in terms of ··~ 
B.L. MANDA WAT v. U.0.1. 
577 
its assurance. [586-D-E) 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.