SURENDRA KUMAR & ORS. versus GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 6 S.C.R. 970 · Decided: 02-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 970 
SURENDRA KUMAR & ORS. 
v. 
GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 
AUTHORITY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4916 of 2015) 
July 2, 2015 
[T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
c 
Service law -
Regularisation -
Claim for, with 
retrospective effect-Appellant initially appointed on the post 
of Assistant Manager on contractual basis and not on any 
sanctioned posts and continuously working on the said posts 
-Advertisements by respondent-authorities for appointment 
D to the said posts - Challenge to - High Court directing 
respondent to consider the claim of appellants for 
regularization on the existing vacancies - During pendency 
of writ petition, policy decision formulated wherein 60% of 
the vacancies were sought to be filled up from amongst 27 
E contractual employees which was later approved by the State 
Government- Pursuant thereto, appellants appointed to the 
said posts -Appellant seeking regularization of their services 
from the date of issuance of advertisement - Allowed by 
tribunal - However, High Court quashing the order passed 
F by the tribunal as also quashing the appointments of the 
appellants - On appeal, held: Appellants were appointed on 
the post only pursuant to the policy decision of the 
respondents for regularisation of contractual employees, 
G thus, the appellants cannot seek regularization with 
retrospective effect from the date of issuance of 
advertisement because at that time regularisation po/icywas 
not in vogue - By policy of regularisation, it was intended to 
give the benefit only from the date of appointment - Court 
H cannot read anything into the policy decision which is plain 
970 
SURENDRA KUMAR v. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL 971 
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
and unambiguous - Appellants have completed more than A 
ten years of continuous service with respondent -
They 
continued in service not by the orders of the court/tribunal, 
but by the policy decision - Thus, the judgment of the High 
Court quashing the appointment of the appellants is set aside 
-
However, appellants' plea for regularization with B 
re.trospective effect is rejected. 
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (3) 
& Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 (3) SCR 953 - referred 
~ 
c 
Case Law Reference 
2006 (3) SCR 953 
referred to. 
Para 2 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. D 
4916 of 2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2013 in 
W.P. No. 65789 of 2011 of the High Court of Judicature at 
Allahabad. 
E 
L. Nageshwar Rao, Vishwajit Singh, Veera Kaul Singh, 
Abhindia Maheswari for the appellants. 
Ravindra Kumar for the respondents. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal arises out of a judgment passed by the G 
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 
dated 29.10.2013 in Writ Petition No.65789 of 2011, in and 
by which, the High Court held that on the principles laid down 
in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma 
Devi (3) & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1, the appointments of the H 
972 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 6 S.C.R. 
A appellants were ex-facie illegal dehorsArticles 14 and 16 of 
the Constitution of India and directed an inquiry regarding 
initial appointments. 
3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the 
B appellants were initially engaged on the post of Assistant 
Manager (Civil) by the respondent No.1-Greater Naida 
Industrial Development Authority on contractual basis for a 
period of 89 days. Admittedly, initial appointments of the 
appellants were not made against any sanctioned posts. 
C However, their engagement continued from time to time, and 
the appellants have been continuously working on the said 
post. On 20.11.2002, the respondent authorities published 
an advertisement for engagement to the posts of Assistant 
Manager (Civil). The appellants and similarly situated 
D persons who have been engaged on contractual basis filed 
a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.54072 of 2002 seeking 
for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-authorities 
to regularise their services on the post of Assistant Manager 
(Civil) and to quash the aforesaid advertisement dated 
E 20.11.2002. The appellants contended that as they were 
working continuously, the respondent authorities instead of 
issuing a fresh advertisement should have regularised their 
services on the said post. By the judgment dated 28.09.2005, 
F the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ P

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