LexSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. versus KAMAL PRASAD & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 13 S.C.R. 370 STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. v. KAMAL PRASAD & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4809 of 2014) APRIL 23, 2014 [GYAN SUDHA MISRAAND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] c Service Law - Termination - Reinstatement - Respondent-employees were appointed by appellant- employer on ad-hoc temporary basis as Assistant Engineers - Subsequently they were dismissed from their services - High Court held that respondents were entitled for relief and o reinstated them into their services - Propriety- Entitlement to benefit of Umadevi's case - Held: Evidence on record produced by respondents clearly showed that they were discharging their services as permanent employees with the appellants to the satisfaction of their employer-Appel/ants E failed to prove that respondents failed to render continuous services to appellants at least for 10 years without intervention of orders of Court - Principle laid down by Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case squarely applicable -Action of appe/Jants in terminating the services of respondent-employees was not F only arbitrary but also shocked conscience - High Court right in reinstating respondent-employees into their services under the appellants by relying on the legal principles laid down in Uma Devi's case. G Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136 - Interference H under- Scope - Discussed. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD:1.1. The evidence on record produced by the 370 STATE OF JHARKHAND v. KAMAL PRASAD 371 respondent-employees would clearly go to show that A they have been rendering services in the posts as ad- hoc Engineers since 1987 and have been discharging their services as permanent employees_ with the appellants. Additional 200 posts were created thereafter by the State Government of Bihar. However, the B respondents continued in their services as ad hoc employees without any disciplinary proceedings against them which prove that they have been discharging services to their employers to their satisfaction. [Para 20][394-D-F] C 1.2. The appellants failed to prove that the respondents have failed to render continuous services to the appellants at least for ten years without intervention of orders of the court, the findings of fact D recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court is based on record, hence the same cannot be termed as erroneous in law. In view of the categorical finding of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the . respondent-employees have continued in their service · E for more than 10 years continuously therefore, the legal principle laid down by this Court in Uma Devi's case squarely applies to the present cases. In fact, the Division Bench of the High Court by regularizing the respondent- employees vide its impugned order has upheld the F constitutional principle laid down by this Court in the case of Olga Tellis case. [Paras 20, 21][395-B-E] Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. (2006) 4 sec 1 : 2006 (3) SCR 953 - held G applicable. Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. (1985) 3 SCC 545 : 1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 51 - followed. H 372 A B c SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R. Ram Swarath Prasad v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2002 (1) J.C.R. 106; State of Karnataka & Ors. v. M.L. Kesari & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 247: 2010 (9) SCR 543; Bihar State Unemployed Civil Engineers Association & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. Etc. (1996) 8 SCC 615: 1996 (1) Suppl. SCR 94; U.P State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey & Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 92 : 2007 (10) SCR 920 and Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi & Ors. (1975) 4 SCC 714 : 1975 (2) SCR 960- referred to. 2. The action of the appellants in terminating the services of the respondent-employees who have rendered continuous service in their posts during D pendency of the Letters Patent Appeals was quashed by the High Court after it has felt that the action is not only arbitrary but shocks its conscience and therefore it has rightly exercised its discretionary power and granted the reliefs to the respondent-employees which do not E call for interference by this Court. The High Court was correct in reinstating the respondent-employees into their services under the appellants by relying on the legal principles laid down by this Court in the Constitution Bench decision in Uma Devi's case. [Paras 23, 24) F [400-D-H] Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai &
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.