JAWAHAR LAL SAZAWAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF J AND K AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 66 · Decided: 27-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
JA WAHAR LAL SAZA WAL AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF J AND KAND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 27, 2002 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956: 
Article 207-Scope and interpretation of 
State Government-Employees-His status, rights and obligations-
Determination and modification of 
D 
State of J and K-Government servants-Permanent appointment before 
1963 in industrial units of State-Incorporation of a private limited company-
Entrustment of State Industrial Units to company-Employees given benefit of 
revision of grades and D.A. as paid to Government servants despite regulations 
framed by company-Order passed by Governor-Pursuant thereto orders 
E passed by company-Denial to appellant-employees of parity of service 
conditions with Government employees-Held not legal-Posts of Government 
employees could not be abolished on the basis of instructions issued by 
Governor-Held appellant-employees continue to be servants of State 
Government-On facts appellants held not guilty of /aches. 
F 
The appellants, appointed prior to 1963 as permanent Government 
servants, were serving in industrial units run by the Department of Commerce 
and Industries of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Subsequent to the 
incorporation of Jammu and Kashmir Industries Ltd. the Governor issued 
an order dated 8th October, 1963 whereby these Undertakings were entrusted 
to this company. Even after this "entrustment" the appellants continued 
G working in the industrial undertakings in which they were initially appointed 
and continued to enjoy the same benefit of service with regard to emoluments, 
leave and pension as other Government employees. Further despite enactment 
of the Jam mu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulation, 1956 by the Company 
the appellants were given benefits of revision of grades and dearness allowance 
. H 
as were paid to the other Government servants of the State . 
66 
.J( 
JL. SAZAWALv. STATE 
67 
Thereafter on the basis of the report of the Rajan Committee, which A 
examined the wage structure of the employees of the Public Sector 
Corporations, the Governor issued an order on 26th April, 1980 and pursuant 
to this the Company issued two orders both dated 8th May, 1980 one relating 
to the cost of living allowance and the second relating to fixation of wages. A 
third order dated 10th November, 1980 laid down that the leave of regular B 
employees of the company would be allowed as per the Factories Act and not 
as per Leave Rules of the Corporation which were applicable to them in the 
past. As these three orders had in effect denied the appellants parity of service 
conditions with Government employees they filed a writ petition before this 
Court challenging these orders. This Court directed that they should first 
approach the High Court. Before High Court they sought directions that they C 
should be deemed to be governed by Service Rules and Regulations which 
are applicable to the State employees and be held entitled to the same salary, 
emoluments, D.A. leave etc., as would be available to the Government servants 
under the State Government. The High Court rejected the appellants' claim 
on the ground that they had voluntarily surrendered their status as 
Government servants in 1963 under Article 207 of the Jammu and Kashmir D 
Civil Service Regulations, 1956 and that in any event their claim was barred 
· by delay and !aches. 
Allowing the appeal preferred by employees and setting aside the 
decision of the High Court. the Court. 
HELD: 1. The impugned orders of the High Court cannot be 
constitutionally sustained. 
2. The conclusion of the High Court that the appellant's status had been 
determined under Article 207 of the Regulations is based on an erroneous 
interpretation· of the Article. The High Court ignored Article l(a) of the 
~egulations. Article 207 deals with the conditions of grant of pension. It does 
not purport to determine status at all. Article 207 does not itself provide for 
the procedure for abolition of a permanent post not the mode of appointment 
E 
F 
to another post nor for the manner in which the employee has to exercise the 
option. It only provides for the consequences of a permanent post being G 
abolished, the'·consequence being that the employee shall have the option of 
accepting another appointment in which event he can count his previous 
service for the purpose of calculating the qualifying period for pension. Since 
there w

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