LexSUNIL KUMAR VERMA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 9 S.C.R. 566 SUNIL KUMAR VERMA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal Nos. 9165-9172 of 2010 etc.) SEPTEMBER 09, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] Service Law-Absorption - Of retrenched employees- Under Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees C of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991 - Writ petition by some of the employees seeking absorption under the 1991 Rules allowed and that order confirmed upto Supreme Court - In the pending writ D petitions which was filed by the present appellants (other employees of the respondent-Corporation), benefits similar to that granted in other writ petition, sought- Single Judge of High Court allowed the petition - Division Bench of High Court questioning the ratio of the judgment passed by the E Single Judge of the High Court passed in the other writ petition, set aside the order in the present case- On appeal, held: When the controversy had been put to rest by this court in the earlier judgment, the Division Bench of High Court was not right in entering into the analysis of the ratio of the F earlier judgment and discussion on binding precedent- This kind of unnecessary enthusiastic quest should be avoided as it is contrary to the principles o( judicial discipline - This kind of situation also procrastinates the litigations and is extremely expensive and time-consuming - Appellants- G employees are entitled to the benefit of absorption - They shall be absorbed as per their seniority - In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that they are paid 40% of the back wages - Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public H 566 SUNIL KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. 567 Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991 - A Constitution of India, 1950- Art. 141 - Precedent - Judicial Discipline. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. It was absolutely inappropriate on the part B of the High Court to go in search of ratio of the judgment rendered by the Single Judge on the earlier occasion, when the controversy had really been put to rest by this court. The Division Bench should not have entered the c arena which was absolutely unwarranted. The decision rendered by this Court inter se parties was required to be followed in the same fact situation. When the factual matrix was absolutely luminescent and did not require any kind of surgical dissection, there was no necessity o to take a different view. This kind of situation procrastinate the litigations and the litigants and is extremely expensive and time consuming. This kind of unnecessary enthusiastic quest should be avoided. It is because it is contrary to the principles of judicial E discipline. [Para 16] [580-H; 581-A-C,F] Koppisetty Venkat Ratnam v. Pamarti Venkayamma 2009 (3) SCR 574: 2009 (4) SCC 244; Sundarjas Kanya/al Bhatija v. Collector 1989 (3) SCR 405: 1989 (3) SCC 396; F Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others 2008 (15) SCR 331: 2008 (10) sec 1 - relied on. Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. & Others 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 517: 2003 (2) SCC 111; Delhi G Administration (Now N. C. T of Delhi) v. Manohar Lal 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 1: 2002 (7) SCC 222 - referred t<?. 2. There is no reason that the appellants should not reap the benefits of absorption and, accordingly, it is 1-1 directed that they shall be absorbed by the State 568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R. A Government as per their seniority and be given the benefit of increments. They will be entitled to their seniority as per the prevalent rules. If anyone has been retired from service, he shall get the retiral benefits B inclusive of pension. [Para 18] [582-C,D] 3. As regards payment of back wages, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the cause of justice would be best ·subserved if each of the appellant is paid 40% of the back wages, and it is so C directed. [Para 19] [582-F-G] D E Case Law Reference 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 517 referred to. Para 9 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 1 referred to. Para 9 2009 (3) SCR 574 relied on. Para 16 1989 (3) SCR 405 relied on. Para 17 2008 (15) SCR 331 relied on. Para 17 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 9165-9172 of2010 . From the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2010 of the F High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Speciar Appeal (defective) Nos. 1034, 1158, 1068 and 1055
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.