DULU DEVI versus STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 961 · Decided: 09-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 12 S.C.R. 961 
OULU DEVI 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No.8429 of 2015) 
OCTOBER 09, 2015 
[M.Y. EQBALAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service law: Regularisation of service of appellant-
teacher'- Claim for - Payment of salary stopped after 10 c 
years of continuous service - On writ petition, High Court 
directing release of salary to her and thereafter she continued 
in service and crossed efficiency bar twice -After few years 
authorities stopped par.ment to appellant along with other 
192 teachers on the ground that her name appeared in the D 
list of terminated teachers - Writ petition by appellant seeking 
continuance in service -
Held: Appellant was never 
terminated from service nor any such order was served upon 
her - Authorities without going through relevant records 
prepared list of 193 teachers and included the name of the 
E 
appellant for terminating services- Mere passing of an order 
of termination would not be effective unless it is 
communicated to the employee concerned -
In the 
background of the facts of this case, particularly, the continued 
service of the appellant for the last 25 years, the impugned 
F 
order passed by the High Court n.ot sustained in law -
Appellant entitled lo continue in service and to all arrears of 
salary in accordance with law. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: Indisputably, the appellant has been 
continuously serving as a teacher since 1989 and 
pursuant to the order passed in the earlier writ petition 
the appellant was paid entire salary from the date when 
H 
961 
962 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A the salary was not paid. The High Court took notice of 
the fact that while considering the regularization of 
services of the appellant, she being the senior most 
teacher of the school was allowed to cross the Efficiency 
Bar two times, initially in the year 2003 and subsequently 
8 
in the year 2005. The High Court in the impugned order 
further noted that the letter of termination was neither 
issued nor the services of the appellant were terminated. 
Admittedly, some of the terminated teachers filed their 
c writ petition challenging the termination, which was 
interfered with by the High Court, but the Court observed 
that the said benefit cannot be granted to the appellant 
as she was not a party in the said writ petition. The High 
~ourt, assuming that the service~ of the appellant were 
o terminated, refused to grant relief and dismissed the writ 
p1etition. The approach of the High Court is not in 
accordance with law. The services of a teacher who has 
been working for the last 25 years shall not be assumed 
to have been terminated and deprived of from her 
E legitimate claim. In the background of the facts of this 
case, particularly, the continued service of the appellant 
for the last 25 years, the impugned order passed by the 
High Court cannot be sustained in law. [Paras 14, 15, 18] 
[967-B-F; 968-F] 
F 
G 
H 
State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika AIR 1966 
SC 1313; Union "of India v. Dinanath Shantaram 
Karekar1998 (3)SCR 933: (1998) 7 sec 569-
relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
AIR 1966 SC 1313 
1998 (3) SCR 933 
relied on. 
Para 16 
relied on. 
Para 17 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
OULU DEVI v. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS 
963 
8429of2015. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2010 of the 
Gauhati High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 2560 of 2007. 
Manish Goswami (For Rameshwar Prasad Goyal), Adv., ·8 
for the Appellant. 
Avijit Roy (For M/s. Corporate Law Group), Adv., for the 
Respondents. 
The following judgment of the Court was delivered. 
M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 
c 
2. The appellant has preferred this appeal by spec!al 
leave against the impugned order dated 06.04.2010 passed 
0 
by the; Gauhati High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.2560 of. 
2007~ filed by the appellant seeking a direction to the 
respondents to allow her to continue in service as 
Headmistress in-charge of the Dhemaji Rastrabhasha Hindi 
Lower Primary School; for regularisation of her service and 
E 
for payment of regular salary to her for the service being 
rendered. The High Court dismissed the said writ petition. 
3. The facts of the case which reveals from'the list of 
dates furnished by the appellant and have not been disputed 
F 
by the respondents, are as under. 
4. The appellant was first appointed as an Assistant 
Teacher in Assamese subject in the Dhemaji Hindi Lower 
Primary School in 1976. By or

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