UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus PARUL DEBNATH & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 969 · Decided: 06-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
~. 
(2009) 9 S.C.R. 969 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
PARUL DEBNATH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3379 of 2009) 
MAY 6, 2009 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Andaman & Nicobar Island Home Guard Regulations, 
1964: 
Regulation 4 - Home Guards - Continuing for 12-23 
years - Claim for regularisation and equal pay for equal work 
A 
.B 
c 
-
Directions given to authorities to frame scheme in 
accordance with principles laid down in Pantha Chatterjee's 
case - In such a scheme, question of 100% reservation would 0 
not arise since the absorption of the respondents did not 
amount to new appointments which could have given rise to 
the question of reservation. 
The respondents were appointed as Home Guards 
in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Home Guard 
E 
Organisation in terms of Regulation 4 of the Andaman 
and Nicobar Islands Home Guard Regulations 1964. They 
filed Original Application before the Central Administrative 
Tribunal seeking directions to the appellants -
administrative authorities to prepare an appropriate 
F 
Scheme for regularisation of their services as they were 
continuing in service ranging from 12-23 years without 
any break, and to give them on the principle of equal pay 
for equal work, salary at par with their counter parts in 
the regular organisation and in particular to those Home 
G 
Guards who were performing duties which were similar 
to the duties of the regular employees of the A&N 
Administration. The Tribunal directed. the authorities 
concerned to frame a scheme for absorption/ 
969 
H 
970 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 9 S.C.R. 
A regularisation/appointment of the respondents and other 
similarly situated Home Guards, keeping in view the local 
conditions and peculiar facts and circumstances of the 
case. On appeal, the High Court directed that the scheme 
as suggested by the Tribunal be framed taking into 
B consideration the principles laid down by the Supreme 
Court in Pantha Chatterjee's1 case. Thereafter a scheme 
was framed by the appellants providing for reservation 
of 20% · of vacant posts to accommodate the 
respondents while setting apart 80% of the vacancies 'for 
c other candidates. The said scheme was challenged by 
the respondents in a writ petition which was dismissed 
by the single Judge of the High Court. However, on 
appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court held that the 
Scheme was not framed in accordance with the 
0 principles laid down in Pantha Chatterjee's case. It set 
aside the scheme as also the judgment of the single 
Judge and directed the Government authorities to frame 
the scheme afresh in keeping with the principles 
enumerated in Pantha Chatterjee's case. Aggrieved, the 
Union of India and Andaman and Nicobar Island 
E administration filed the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Division Bench of the High Court in 
F the judgment :under appeal rightly hetd that the intention 
of the earlier Division Bench was that the Scheme was 
to be framed not only in ·terms of the directions given by 
the Central A~ministrative Tribunal, but also in the light 
-of the views expressed by this Court in Pantha 
Chatterjee's case. A glance at the impugned Scheme 
G makes it very clear that the same was not framed in terms 
of the directions given by the Division Bench and 
certainly not in keeping with the decision in Pantha 
Chatterjee's ca_se. As has been very rightly pointed out in 
H 1. 
2003(1) Suppl. scr 427. 
-
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. PARUL DEBNATH & 
971 
ORS . 
.... 
)r 
the judgment under appeal, it was the intention, of the 
A 
,.. 
Tribunal and the High Court, as well as this Court, that 
the respondent Home Guards were to be absorbed in the 
regular establishment of the Andaman and Nicobar 
Islands and no new appointment was required to be 
made. [Para 22] [982-C-F] 
B 
State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Pantha Chatterjee & Ors . 
..i:~ 
2003(1) Suppl. SCR 427=2003 (6) sec 469, relied on. 
1.2. It was the further intention of the Tribunal as well 
as the Courts that the absorption ·of the eligible c 
respondents were to be at one go and not in phases, as 
··-
has been sought to be suggested in the im,Pugned 
Scheme. In fact, such a procedure was neither directed 
by the Tribunal nor the High Court, nor this Court in 
> 
Pantha Chatterjee's case. [Para 22] [982-F-G] · 
D 
~ 
2. In implementing the directions on the line of Pantha 
Chatterji's case, the question of 100% reservation would 
not arise since the absorption of the 

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