LexSANDHYA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 255 SANDHYA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5887 of 2014) JULY 01, 2014 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.) A B Service law: Regularisation - Claim for - Appellant- Terminated employee challenging termination and seeking C regularisation of services - Administrative Tribunal directing the authorities to regularise the services in accordance with Government Resolution dated 1 Oth March 2005 - Authorities refusing to regularise the appellant on the ground that he was not working on the date the said Government Resolution came D into force - High Court refusing to interfere with the orders of authorities - Held: High Court has misguided itself by holding that the appellant was not working on the date of Government Resolution dated 1 Oth March, 2005 - The order of termination dated 20th April, 1998 was set aside by the Tribunal by its E order dated 24th November, 2011 - The. order of termination being set aside, in the eye of law the appellant shall be deemed to be continued in service even on 10th March, 2005 i.e. the date when the Government Resolution was issued - The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the appellant with retrospective effect .. F The applications were called for appointment to the post of revenue clerks. Those who could not be adjusted against the post but were kept in the waiting list, were called upon to work on payment 6f nominal fees and G were known as unpaid candidates. The appellant was working as unpaid candidate since 4th July, 1985. The services of certain unpaid candidates were terminated. The appellant's service was also terminated on 20th April, 255 H 256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R. A 1988. The appellant and others challenged their respective orders of termination before the Administrative Tribunal and prayed for directions on respondents for regularisation of their services. The Tribunal by order dated 24th November, 2011 allowed the applications and B set aside their orders of termination with directions to the respondents to take action for regularisation of services of all the applicants including the appellant in accordance with GR dated 10th March, 2005. Thereafter, r~spondent no. 3 by letter dated 7th August, 2012, intimated the c appellant that her service could not be regularized because of non:fulfillment of condition in GR dated 10th March, 2005. It was alleged that the appellant was not working on the date when GR came into force. The appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the 0 High Court on the ground that the appellant did not fulfill the requirement laid down under GR dated 10th March, 2005. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court. E Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. TIJe High Court has misguided itself by holding that the appellant was not in service since July, 2002 and was not working on the date of Government Resolution dated 10th March, 2005. The order of F termination dated 20th April, 1998 was set aside by the Tribunal by its order dated 24th November, 2011. The Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the case of appellant for reg1.1larization in terms of Government Resolution dated 10th March, 2005. The order of G termination being set aside, in the eye of law the appellant shall be deemed to be continued in service even on 10th March, 2005 i.e. the date when the Government Resolution was issued. Such being the position of law, the appellant is entitled for regularization. But the High Court was not correct in holding that the appellant was not in service on H SANDHYA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 257 ·10th March, 2005 and wrongly rejected her claim for A regularization. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the appellant with retrospective effect. [Paras 17, 18 and 19] (261-F-H; 262-A-C] Shivashankar Gundu Jawanlal and Anr. vs. State of B Maharashtra and Ors. 2007 (3) Mh.L.J. 43 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 2007 (3) Mh.L.J. 43 referred to Para 8 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. C 5887 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2013 in WP No. 1047/2013, of the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad. P .V. Daware, Dr. Kai lash Chand for the _Appellant. Atul B. Dakh (for A.P. Mayee) for the Respondents.- The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1.Leave granted.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.