MAHENDRA RAJ MARG KARAMCHARI UNION versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1116 · Decided: 24-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MAHENDRA RAJ MARG KARAMCHARI UNION 
~ 
ORS. ETC .. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
B 
MARCH 24, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) 
Service law: 
C 
CPWD-Bilateral agreement between India and Nepal-Construction 
D 
work in Nepa! .pursuant to agreement-Recruitment of local persons-Com-
pletion of project-Tennination of service~laim for regular appointment 
and parity with CPWD employees of Indi~Agreement conferring 
benefits-Directio_ns regarding. 
Pursuant to a bilateral agreement between the Govt. of India and the 
Government of Nepal the former undertook various construction works in 
Nepal on behalf of latter. For exeeution of the said work petitioner8 were 
appointed from amongst local people. On completion of work when ter· 
mination notices were issued, the petitioners filed petitions in this Court 
B for quashing the notices. They also sought declaration that (i) they belong 
to the Nepal based .category of CPWD employees of the Gove.mment of 
India and (ii) they are to be treated at pal' with CPWD employees working 
in India. 
F 
The case of Union of India was that the petitioners cannot get the 
\ 
reliefs sought as they were always treated as a separate class. However, 
/ 
under an agreement entered with the appellant-Union, practically all the~ _,,... 
reliefs sought for were granted to the petitioners but as many of ·the 
regularly recruited Indian employees were permanent and/or seniors, the 
~ 
G petitioners working in work charge project could not be treated as regular. 
Therefore In Para 7 of the agreement it was provided that services of those 
workers who accept the post offered in India would be treated as fresh ones 
and their past service would not be counted for seniority but for all other 
purposes they would be given the benefit. 
H 
Disposing of the petitions, "this Court . 
1116 
( 
I 
t-r 
I 
I 
MAHENDRA R.M. KARAM. UNION v. U.0.1. 
1117 
HELD : The petitioners' prayer itself clearly indicates that they are A 
. conscious that at no time they were treated as members of the Indian 
establishment. They remained only as Nepal based employees appointed 
for execution of the works in Nepal. Normally, when th!! works are com-
pleted the establishment gets closed. Then the persons employed therein 
also would lose their jobs. But, with a view to facilitating their continuance 
in India, with benevolent attitude the Government of India reached an 
agreement with their Union. But for the agreement petitioners have no 
right to the posts. Only condition which would have effect on the continuity 
of the service is in paragraph 7 (vii) thereof. In this regard the stand taken 
B 
by the Government of India is just and fair. To treat the regularly recruited 
employees of CPWD in India and those who are sought to be absorbed by C 
bilateral agreement like the writ petitioners is to treat unequals as equals, 
and the latter would get unfair advantage over the former who would be 
adversely affected. In the circumstances, clause 7(vii) of the Agreement is 
just and fair and calls for no interference. The settlement covers all the 
disputes and has given the petitioners more than what they had asked for D 
in the writ petitions. No further directions need be given except approving 
the settlement entered ·into by the Government of India with the Union 
which is part of the record. [lUO-C-F, 1121-A-C] 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: W.P. (C) Nos. 5140-48, 3516, 
5149-52, of 1983. 
E 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.} 
Govind Mukhoty, Naresh Kaushik, Mrs. Lalitha Kaushik with him for 
the Petitioner. 
V.C. Mahajan, Mrs. Sushma Suri, Ms. Binn Tamta, with him for the 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
These Petitions are disposed of by a common order since the ques- G 
tions raised are the same. Pursuant to a bilateral agreement between the 
Government of India and the Government of Nepal various works in Nepal 
were undertaken by the Government of India on behalf of Nepal Govern-
ment, in particular, the road construction. In execution of the said projects 
several persons including these petitioners came to be appointed. They are H 
1118 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995) 2 S.C.R. 
A of four categories, namely, 1, Nepal based muster roll workers 2. Nepal 
based regular establishment comprising of LDCs (class III and IV) such 
as Khalasis, Jamadars, Cooks etc. 3. Nepal based regular classified staff 
and 4. Nepal Based workcharged establishment. After t

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