MALATHI DAS (RETD.) NOW P.B. MAHISHY & ORS. versus SURESH & ORS

Citation: [2014] 3 S.C.R. 637 · Decided: 07-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 3 S.C.R. 637 
MALATHI DAS (RETD.) NOW P.B. MAHISHY & ORS. 
v. 
SURESH & ORS 
(Civil Appeal No. 3338 of 2014) 
MARCH 7, 2014 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
SERVICE LAW: 
A 
B 
Regularization - Similarly situated daily rated employees c 
like respondents, regularaised on the basis of directions of 
High Court, which directions attained finality on dismissal of 
SLP by Supreme Court - Respondents not regularized ori the 
ground that meanwhile as per judgment in Uma Devi they 
were not entitled to regularization - Direction by High Court 0 
in contempt petition to regularise respondents, failing which 
matter to be posted for framing of charge - Held: Similarly 
placed employees having been regularized, and in the case 
of some of them such regularization being after the decision 
in Umadevi, stand taken by appellants in refusing 
E 
regularization to respondents cannot be countenanced -
However, as the stand of appellants stemmed from their 
perception and understanding of decision in Umadevi, they 
are not held liable for contempt but, it is made clear that 
appellants and all other competent authorities of State will be 
F 
obliged and duty bound to regularize the services of 
respondents forthwith - Contempt of Court. 
·The instant appeal arose out of the contempt petition 
filed by 74 respondents before the High Court for non-
compliance of the judgment and order dated 15.12.1999 
G 
passed by the High Court following an earlier order dated 
10.9.1999 passed in similar writ petitions, directing 
regularization of services of 445 daily rated employees, 
including the respondents. Following the dismissal of the 
637 
H 
638 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 
A SLPs of the State by the Supreme Court, by order dated 
22.07.2005, a Scheme dated 29.12.2005 was framed by the 
State Government to implement the order dated 
15.12.1999 passed in the subsequent writ petitions. Some 
of the employees were regularized under the scheme. 
B Services of some others were regularized after filing of 
contempt proceedings. During the pendency of the 
contempt petition, the claim of regularization of 
respondents was rejected on the ground that the 
claimants did not fulfill the conditions for regularization. 
c as laid down by Supreme Court in Umadevi1• The High 
Court, by orders dated 26.3.2007, held the appellants 
prima facie guilty of commission of contempt and granted 
them two weeks time to comply with the relevant order, 
failing which the matter was directed to be posted for 
0 framing of charge. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In a situation where a Scheme had been 
framed on 29.12.2005 to give effect to the order dated 
E 15.12.1999 passed by the High Court in the writ petitions 
filed by the respondents and many of the similarly 
situated persons have been regularized, the action of the 
appellants in not granting regularization to the 
respondents cannot appear to be sound or justified. The 
F fact that the regularization of 55 employees, similarly 
situated to the respondents, was made on 18.04.2006 i.e. 
after the decision of this Court in Umadevi leaves no 
doubt or ambiguity in the matter. Besides, it is wholly 
unnecessary to consider as to whether the cases of 
G persons who were awaiting regularization on the date of 
the decision in Umadevi are required to be dealt with in 
accordance with the conditions stipulated in its para 53 
inasmuch as the claims of the respondent employees can 
well be decided on principles of parity. [para 8) [643-F-H; 
H 644-8-C] 
MALATHI DAS (RETD.) NOW P.B. MAHISHY & ORS. 639 
v. SURESH & ORS. 
Secretary, State of Kamataka and Others vs. Umadevi A 
(3) and Others 2006 (3) SCR 953 = (2006) 4 SCC 1 • referred 
to. 
1.2 Similarly placed employees having been 
regularized by the State and in case of some of them 8 
such regularization being after the decision in Umadevi, 
this Court is of the view that the stand taken by the 
appellants in refusing regularization to the respondents 
cannot be countenanced. However, as the said stand of 
the appellants stemmed from their perception and 
understanding of the decision in Umadevi, they are not C 
·held liable for contempt but, it is made clear that the 
appellants and all the other competent authorities of the 
State will be obliged and duty bound to regularize the 
services of the respondents (74 in number) forthwith. 
[para 8] (644-C-E] 
D 
Case Law Reference: 
2006 (3) SCR 953 
referred to 
para 4 
CI

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