LexSITIKANATHA MISHRA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 16
SITIKANATHA MISHRA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 234-235 of 2015)
JANUARY 9, 2015
[ANIL R. DAVE, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND
R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Service Law: Regularization and lien - Claim for - Initial
C appointment of appellant as Professor, on contract - Later
regularized w. e.f. the date of joining the post - Prior to
issuance of formal order indicating regularization of the
appellant with retrospective effect, appellant joined higher post
(post of Director) on contract basis - After completing his
o tenure as Director, appellant applied for rejoining the post of
Professor - Denied by the Department on the ground that he
was not having substantive appointment as Professor - Writ
petition challenging the denial, dismissed - On appeal, held:
Order of regularization was applicable to the appellant and he
E would be deemed to have been regularized on the post of
Professor from the date he joined the said post - Thus, having
been regularized, the appellant was holding the substantive
post as Professor, and therefore, his claim for lien over that
post, is required to be considered by the Competent Authority.
F
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.The appellant having been appointed in the
year 1997 after due selection and covered by the
recommendation of the Staff Inspection Unit in the year
G 2002 which recommendation was accepted by the
Government of India, a decision to regularize incumbents
of 68 posts clearly applied to the appellant. No doubt, the
appellant had taken over as Director in the Institute but
on that ground, it will be unjust to deny him the benefit
H
16
SITIKANATHA MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA
17
of the said regularization.- The appellant had to be taken
A
as having been regularized on the post of Professor with
effect from 27th January, 1997. [para 12-13] [23-B-D]
State of M.P. 'Vs. Sandhya Tomar 2012 (11) SCR 839 =
2013 (11) SCC 357, State of Rajasthan vs. S.N. Tiwari 2009
B
(4) SCR 448 = 2009 (4) SCC 700, Arun Kumar Agrawal vs.
Union of India and others 2014 (3) SCR 861 = 2014
(2) sec 609 - relied on.
S. Narayana vs. Mohd. Ahmedulla Khan 2006 (2) Suppl.
SCR 69 = 2006 (10) SCC 84 - distinguished.
C
2. The competent authority has rejected the claim of
the appellant to join as Professor after completing his
tenure as Director, only on the ground that he was not
having substantive appointment as Professor which is o
not correct. However, the question whether having
regard to the nature of the work to which the appellant
was appointed on contract basis, i.e., Director and the
period for which he was appointed, his claim for lien could
be accepted, survives. The appellant is deemed to have
been regularized in service as Professor with effect from
27th January, 1997 and the decision of the Central
Government dated 31st October, 2006 as ratified by the
Board of Governors was applicable to him. This issue
should, in the first instance, be decided by the department
in the light of observations made above. [para 19-20] [27-
E-F, G-H]
Case Law Reference :
2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 69distinguished
2012 (11) SCR 839
relied on
2009 (4) SCR 448
2014 (3) SCR861
relied on
relied on
Para 15
para 17
para 11
para 18
E
F
G
H
A
18
SUPREME' COURT REPORTS
[2015) 1 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 234-
235 of 2015
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.03.2012 and
10.10.2012 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C)
B No. 2331 of 2010 and RVWPET No. 212 of 2012 respectively.
Kirti Renu Mishra, Apurva Upmanyu for the Appellant.
Kamini Jaiswal, Shilpi Dey, for the Respondents.
C
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been preferred against the final
judgment and order dated 27th March, 2012 in Writ Petition
D No.2331 of 2010 and order dated 10th October, 2012 in
Review Petition No.212 of 2012 of the High Court of Orissa at
Cuttack.
3. The question raised for our consideration is whether the
E appointment of the appellant to the post of Professor in the
Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel Management ("llTTM"), an
autonomous .body under the Ministry of Tourism, Government
of India from 27th January, 1997 could be treated to be on
regular basis and whether his appointment to the post of
F Director in the same Institute with effect from 8th June, 2006,
on contractual basis, had the effect of relinquishiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.