STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. versus SHYAM YADAV AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 249 · Decided: 14-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
v. 
SHYAM YADAV AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
JANUARY 14, 1997 
(S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) 
Se1vice Law---Retrenched census employee~Absorption iii the State 
Govemment-No document indicating that State Govemment has decided to 
absorb them in Govemment Se1vices nor to show that any of them was earlier 
A 
B 
a State Govemment employee-Hence, the High Court's direction to give C 
preference to such employees in the matter of appointment in the State ser-
vices, is held liable to be set aside-However, such employees are entitled to 
relaxation to age-limit i11td priority in forwarding of name!; by employment 
exchange. 
At the time of Census operations, Government of India appoints D 
Class III and Class IV employees but after the completion of the said 
operation, services of those employees get terminated. Similar appoint-
ment and termination were made in connection with 1991 census opera-
tions. 
The Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Government of 
India requested the Chief Secretary of the State to absorb the retrenched 
census employee in its office. But the Chief Secretary showed his con-
straints for the reason that In different offices of the state Government 
itself, there was an excess number of both retrenched and surplus 
E 
employees still waiting for readjustment. 
F 
The respondents filed a writ petition for direction to the State 
Government to absorb them against the existing vacancies available in 
different departments in the State Government. The High Court allowed 
the writ petition on the ground that the State Government took a policy 
decision on January 8, 1973 to provide employment by absorbing G 
retrenched census employees, by relying on the different letters of the State 
Government in which the said policy was reiterated through various 
executive instructions. The High Court directed the State Government to 
absorb them along with others at the time of regular appointment against 
> 
suitable posts and that they should be given preference, if they are other- H 
249 
250 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 
A wise eligible for such appointment and in case they are found over aged, 
y 
age relaxation equivalent to the period they have served in the Census 
Department, can also be provided but such consideration shall be strictly 
B 
in accordance with inter se seniority of the retrenched employees of that 
year. Hence, State preferred this appeal. 
The appellant contented that the documents on which High Court 
relied related to retrenched employees of 1971 and 1981 Census Opera· 
tions. In regard to the retrenched employees of 1991 Census Operation, 
the State Government has fully considered their case and decided that it 
was not possible to absorb them in State Service because there was excess 
C number of both retrenched and surplus em1iloyees waiting for readjust· 
ment. 
Respondent on the other hand contended that they were employees 
of the State Government having been employed in connection with the 
census operations in the State and it is the obligation of the State Govern· 
D ment to absorb them in the service under the State. This contention has 
been raised for the first time in this court. 
E 
F 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgement of the High 
Court, this Court 
HELD : 1. In view of the specific averment contained in the Writ 
Petition that the Petitioners were given temporary appointment in the 
census department of the Central Government, there is no basis for the 
claim of the petitioners that they were the employees of the State Govern· 
ment and, therefore, it is the obligation of the State Government to absorb 
them. [253-H] 
2. On considering the letters on which High Court had relied, it can 
be construed that those letters referred to the census operations of 1971 
and 1981. But there is nothing in the said letters, which may indicate that 
G it contains a policy for the absorption of retrenched census employees for 
the future census operations. On the other hand, there are letters of the 
State Government stating that it was not possible for the State Govern· 
ment to absorb the retrenched employees of 1991 Census operation in the 
State Government. So, it cannot be said the State Government had taken 
any policy decision regarding absorption of retrenched Census employees 
H for the future census operations. [254·B·D] 
__ _,,._ 
~---~ 
STATE v. SHY AM YADAV [AGARAWAL, J.] 
251 
3. The petitioner may be given 

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