Supreme Court of India
RAJNISH KUMAR MISHRA & ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ETC.
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 1373
- Decided
- 13 December 2019
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the appellants are entitled to regularisation with continuity of service, upholding the 9 November 2012 order and quashing subsequent orders, but they are not entitled to back wages.
Summary
The appellants were initially appointed on an ad‑hoc basis to the Ambedkar Nagar Judgeship between 1999 and 2001 and continued in service after a 2006 High Court order allowing them to remain pending a recruitment process that was later cancelled. They sought regularisation; a District Judge formed a Committee which recommended and effected regularisation on 9 November 2012, effective 1 June 2012. A successor District Judge later set aside that order without hearing the appellants, ordered recovery of emoluments and the appellants were terminated in 2017. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellants, who had more than ten years of continuous service and were appointed before the 31 December 2001 cut‑off, were entitled to one‑time regularisation under the Uttar Pradesh Rules and the precedent set by Umadevi and Sheo Narain Nagar. It held that the 2012 regularisation order was valid, the later orders violated natural‑justice principles, and the appellants must be reinstated with continuity of service but not entitled to back wages. Consequently, the Court quashed the lower‑court judgments and directed reinstatement with terminal benefits.
Issues considered
- Whether ad‑hoc employees appointed before 31 December 2001 are entitled to regularisation under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation Rules and the one‑time regularisation principle laid down in Umadevi.
- Whether the successor District Judge could set aside the 2012 regularisation order without affording the appellants a hearing, thereby violating natural justice.
- Whether the amendment of the Rules in 2016, which retained the 31 December 2001 cut‑off date, affects the appellants' entitlement to regularisation.
- Whether the appellants are entitled to back wages for the period between termination and reinstatement.
Subjects
regularisationad‑hoc appointmentservice lawnatural justiceone‑time regularisationUttar Pradesh service rulestermination of employmentreinstatement
Judgment
68 [2019]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 15 S.C.R. 68 [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A RAJNISH KUMAR MISHRA & ORS. ETC.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9413-9414 of 2019)
B DECEMBER 13, 2019
[S.A. BOBDE, CJI, B.R. GAVAI AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Service Law – Regularisation – On creation of the Ambedkar
Nagar Judgeship, the appellants were appointed on ad-hoc basis –
C In 2001, advertisement issued for direct recruitment of Class-III
employees – Appellants filed writ petitions – Order passed on
01.08.06 providing that appellants may also apply and their cases
shall be considered along with other candidates – However, the
said selection process was canceled and the appellants were
continued on the ad-hoc basis as per interim order dtd. 01.08.06 –
D In the mean-time, the appellants represented to the District Judge,
Ambedkar Nagar for regularisation – District Judge constituted
Committee – It recommended regularization by report dtd.12.07.12
– District Judge regularised the services of the appellants – However,
the successor in the office of the District Judge inter alia declared
E that the orders of regularization were non-est – Writ petitions
dismissed by the Single Judge – Appellants’ services terminated –
Appellants filed writ petition – Dismissed – Held: Report of the
Committee is on the basis of the Circular dtd. 05.11.09 issued by
the Registrar General of the High Court – Circular shows that all
the District Judges were directed that in order to restore the procedure
F for appointment of Class III & Class IV employees, all such ad-hoc
daily wage appointees appointed subsequent to 31.12.01 without
following any procedure of law, must cease to work immediately –
During the pendency of the petitions, the Rules with regard to
regularization were amended which provided cut-off date of
G 31.12.01– Appellants were appointed prior to 31.12.01 – Change
in position of law ought to have been taken into consideration by
the High Court – Appellants continued in services from 01.08.06
on account of interim orders passed in writ petitions – As such,
when the appellants’ case was considered for regularization by the
H
68
RAJNISH KUMAR MISHRA & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF 69
UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ETC.
Committee, the appellants had put in service almost for 12 years – A
Further, in view of the exception carved out in Umadevi case
providing for one-time regularization of employees who completed
10 years or above; the parity of similarly circumstanced employees
who were granted benefit in the Sheo Narain Nagar case and the
Rules amended in 2016 which provide cut-off date of 31.12.01, the
B
appellants are also entitled for regularization – Appellants be
reinstated with continuity in service for all the purposes including
terminal benefits, however, not entitled to back wages for the period
they are out of employment –Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily
Wages Appointments on Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001.
Allowing the appeals, the Court C
HELD: 1.1 The Circular addressed by the Registrar
General of the High Court of Allahabad dated 05.11.09 would
show, that all the District Judges have been directed that in order
to restore the procedure for appointment of Class III and Class
IV employees, all such ad-hoc daily wage appointees, who are D
appointed subsequent to 31.12.01 without following any procedure
of law, must cease to work immediately. The said cut-off date is
provided in the said circular inasmuch as the provisions of Uttar
Pradesh Regularization of daily wages Appointments on Group
‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001 were notified on 31.12.01. The Committee E
also found that all the appellants were appointed prior to 31.12.01;
they were in continuous service thereafter and their services
were satisfactory. In pursuance of the said report the District
Judge vide order dated 09.11.12 regularized the services of
appellants from 01.06.12. The report of the Committee under
the chairmanship of the Additional District Judge is mainly on F
the basis of the Circular issued by the Registrar General of the
High Court dated 05.11.09. By the time when the cases of the
appellants for regularization had come up for consideration before
the Committee the Judgment of the Constitution Bench of this
Court in the case of Umadevi had already been pronounced. In G
the said Judgment itself, the Constitution Bench had provided
that as a one-time measure the State should take up steps for
regularization of the employees, who had rendered the services
for a period of more than 10 years. [Paras 14-15][75-A-D, F-H]
H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A 1.2 During the pendency of the petitions, the Rules with
regard to regularization were amended which provided cut-off
date of 31.12.01. Undisputedly, all the appellants were appointed
prior to 31.12.01. The change in position of law ought to have
been taken into consideration by the High Court. Undisputedly,
the appellants were continued in services from 01.08.06 on
B
account of interim orders passed in writ petitions. However, the
selection process in which the appellants were permitted to
participate, could not see the light of the day, as it was
subsequently cancelled in 2008. As such, as a matter of fact,
when the appellants’ case was considered for regularization by a
C Committee under the chairmanship of Additional District Judge,
the appellants had, in fact, put in service almost for a period of 12
years. The Committee under the chairmanship of the Additional
District Judge had rightly submitted its report dated 12.07.12
and the then District Judge had rightly passed the order of
regularization on 09.11.12 granting regularization from 01.06.12.
D
While considering the representation of some of the employees
for promotion, the successor in the office of the District Judge
could not have annulled the order of the regularization of the
appellants which was done after following the proper procedure.
The least that was required to be done was to follow the principles
E of natural justice by giving an opportunity of being heard to the
appellants. The three orders passed by the District Judge dated
16.08.2014 also suffer from violation of the principles of natural
justice. In view of the exception carved out in the case of Umadevi
providing for one-time regularization of employees who have
completed 10 years or above; the parity of similarly circumstanced
F
employees who have been granted benefit in the case of Sheo
Narain Nagar and the Rules amended in 2016 which provide a
cut-off date of 31.12.2001, the appellants are also entitled for
regularization of their services. [Paras 17-19][76-E-H; 77-A-D]
1.3 In the result: (1) the appeals are allowed; (2) the
G Judgement and order dated 14.09.2017 passed by the Single
Judge of the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No.4813(S/
S) of 2014 and Writ Petition No.5530(S/S) of 2014 as well as
Division Bench of the said High Court dated 09.07.2018 in Special
Appeal No.440 of 2017 and in Special Appeal No.444 of 2017 are
H
RAJNISH KUMAR MISHRA & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF 71
UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ETC.
quashed and set aside; and (3) the orders dated 16.08.2014 A
passed by the District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar are quashed and
set aside and the consequential order of termination dated
23.9.2017 is also quashed and set aside; (4) the order dated
9.11.2012 passed by the District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar
regularizing the services of appellants with effect from 01.06.2012
B
is upheld; (5) Consequentially, the termination of the appellants
from their services is quashed and set aside and the appellants
are directed to be reinstated forthwith with continuity in service
for all the purposes including terminal benefits. However, in the
facts and circumstance of the case, the appellants would not be
entitled for back wages for the period during which they are out C
of employment. [Para 20][77-D-H; 78-A]
State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. (2006)
4 SCC 1 : [2006] 3 SCR 953 – followed.
Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors. (2018) 13 SCC 432 : [2017] 11 SCR 138 – relied D
on.
Case Law Reference
[2017] 11 SCR 138 relied on Para 12
[2006] 3 SCR 953 followed Para 12 E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 9413-
9414 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2018 by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Special Appeal
No. 440 of 2017. F
S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Akhilesh Kalra, Rohit
Kumar Singh, Ms. Rani Mishra, Jatinderpal Singh, Prasanjit Singh Rathore,
Adarsh Upadhyay, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Ms. Sukriti Bhatnagar, Advs.
for the appearing parties.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: G
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A 3. The appeals challenge the judgment and order passed by the
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 09.07.2018, which
has dismissed the appeals filed by the present appellants and confirmed
the order passed by the learned single judge of the said High Court
dated 14.9.2017 with some modifications.
B 4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeals are as
under.
5. On creation of the Ambedkar Nagar Judgeship, the appellants
were appointed on ad-hoc basis. The appellants were appointed in the
year 1999-2001. The initial appointment of the appellants was made for
C a period of three months, which term was extended from time to time.
6. In the year 2001, an advertisement was issued for direct
recruitment of Class-III employees, which led the appellants to file several
writ petitions before the High Court which were clubbed together, the
lead Writ Petition being W.P. No.7544(S/S) of 2003. In the said bunch
D of writ petitions, an order was passed on 01.08.2006 providing therein,
that appellants may apply in response to the advertisement and their
cases shall be considered along with other candidates. It was also directed
that the District Judge may send their names to High Court on
administrative side for considering, if they could be granted relaxation in
age. It was further observed, that it was open for the District Judge and
E Selection Committee to take into account the length of service and
experience etc. of the appellants. It was further directed that till the
selection process was over, appellants would be allowed to continue in
service in the same capacity.
7. It appears from the record that subsequently the said selection
F process came to be cancelled and the appellants were continued in the
employment on the ad hoc basis as per the interim order passed on
01.08.2006. It further appears, that in the mean-time the appellants, since
they were continued for a long period, made representations to the District
Judge, Ambedkar Nagar for their regularisation. The District Judge by
G an order dated 28.5.2012 constituted a Committee under the chairmanship
of an Additional District Judge, comprising of two other members who
were also Judicial Officers. The said Committee submitted its report on
12.07.2012, recommending regularization of the appellants. Pursuant to
the said recommendation made by the Committee, the District Judge
passed orders regularising the services of the appellants on 09.11.2012.
H However, the successor in the office of the District Judge passed an
RAJNISH KUMAR MISHRA & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF 73
UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ETC.
order dated 16.08.2014 thereby, declaring that the orders of regularization A
were non-est. By a second order passed on the same day i.e. 16.08.2014,
the District Judge also withdrew the earlier order by which, the appellants
were granted the benefits of increments with certain other benefits. The
District Judge passed a third order on 16.08.2014 thereby, directing
recovery of emoluments paid to the appellants. It is further to be noted
B
that after the writ petitions were dismissed by the learned single judge of
the High Court on 14.9.2017, the appellants’ services came to be
terminated immediately on 23.9.2017.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid three orders, the appellants filed
Writ Petition No.4813 (S/S) of 2014 and Writ Petition No.5530 (S/S) of
2014. The single Judge of High Court by an order dated 14.09.2017, C
dismissed the writ petitions and also imposed cost of Rs.50,000/- on
each of the appellants (petitioners therein).
9. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred appeals before
the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench while
dismissing the appeals, however, set aside the order insofar as saddling D
the costs is concerned. The Division Bench further directed, that since
one Manish Kumar Malviya, who was also one of the appellants before
the Division Bench of the High Court, was appointed on 06.04.1998, he
was eligible to be considered for regularization in terms of the Uttar
Pradesh Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointment (On Post within the E
purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 as amended in
the year 2001. It was further directed, that till the outcome of consideration
of his case for regularization he should be continued on ad-hoc basis.
The Division Bench further directed that in case any recruitment process
for Class III posts takes place in future, the appellants would be permitted
to participate in the same and the Court would consider grant of relaxation F
in age and grant of preference to them by giving some benefit of length
of service rendered by them in ad-hoc capacity. Being aggrieved thereby,
the appellants have approached this Court.
10. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellants submits,
that the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court G
have erred in dismissing the petitions and appeals of the appellants. She
submits, that the Committee under the chairmanship of the Additional
District Judge had given report on 12.07.2012 on the basis of Circular
dated 05.11.2009, issued by the High Court. She further submits, that
the then incumbent of the office of the District Judge had rightly, after H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A considering the report, issued the order of regularisation on 9.11.2012.
She submits, that as a matter of fact, there was no occasion for the
successor in the office of the District Judge to have passed order dated
16.08.2014, cancelling the order of regularization granted vide order dated
9.11.2012.
B 11. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits, that
during the pendency of the writ petitions the UP Regularization of Persons
Working on daily wages or on work charge or on contract in government
department on group ‘C’ and group ‘D’ posts (outside the purview of
the UP Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 were framed. Rule 6
C thereof provided cut-off date as 31.12.2001. She further submits, that
the High Court has failed to take into consideration the import of said
Rules.
12. The learned counsel further submits, that this Court in the
case of Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
D Ors.1, after considering the judgment of this Court in Secretary, State
of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors.2 wherein it was observed
that as a one-time measure the employer should take steps for
regularisation of the services of the employees who had put in service of
10 years or more and had directed regularization of the appellants therein.
The learned counsel further submits, that the appeals deserve to be
E allowed and the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
13. Shri S.R. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents would submit, that the appellants continued in service
by virtue of interim order passed by the High Court dated 01.08.2006
and, as such, the benefit of one-time regularization as provided by the
F judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Umadevi
(supra), cannot be granted to the appellants. It is further submitted, that
the report of the Committee set up by the District Judge dated 12.07.2012
was collusive and, as such, the successor in the office of District Judge
had rightly passed an order dated 16.08.2014 thereby, cancelling the
G order of regularization dated 09.11.2012 passed on the basis of the Report
dated 12.07.2012. He further submits, that the appellants are not entitled
to the equitable relief and, as such, the appeals deserve to be dismissed.
1
(2018) 13 SCC 432 {Civil Appeal No.18510 of 2017 [@ SLP(C) No.6183/2015]}
2
H (2006) 4 SCC 1
RAJNISH KUMAR MISHRA & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF 75
UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ETC.
14. We have perused the material placed on record. The Circular A
addressed by the Registrar General of the High Court of Allahabad dated
05.11.2009 would show, that all the District Judges have been directed
that in order to restore the procedure for appointment of Class III and
Class IV employees, all such ad-hoc daily wage appointees, who are
appointed subsequent to 31.12.2001 without following any procedure of
B
law, must cease to work immediately. It appears, that the said cut-off
date is provided in the said circular inasmuch as the provisions of Uttar
Pradesh Regularization of daily wages Appointments on Group ‘D’ Posts
Rules, 2001 were notified on 31.12.2001. The Committee under the
chairmanship of the Additional District Judge after basically considering
the Circular dated 05.11.2009 and the cut-off date of 31.12.2001 C
mentioned therein had submitted the report thereby, recommending
regularization of the appellants. While considering the same, the
Committee also found that all the appellants were appointed prior to
31.12.2001; they were in continuous service thereafter and their services
were satisfactory. In pursuance of the said report the District Judge
D
vide order dated 09.11.2012 regularized the services of appellants from
01.06.2012. It appears that subsequently in the year 2014 certain
employees made representation(s) to the successor in the office of the
District Judge for promotion. While examining the same, the District
Judge found that regularization of the appellants was not proper and,
therefore, vide order dated 16.08.2014 annulled the regularization of the E
appellants and also ordered for recovery of the amount, which the
appellants had received on the basis of the order dated 09.11.2012.
15. The Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have primarily
non-suited the appellants on the ground, that the regularization of the
appellants was on account of collusion between the appellants and the F
members of the Committee. However, at the cost of repetition, we may
state that the report of the Committee under the chairmanship of the
Additional District Judge is mainly on the basis of the Circular issued by
the Registrar General of the High Court dated 05.11.2009. It is further
to be noted, that by the time when the cases of the appellants for
regularization had come up for consideration before the Committee the G
Judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Umadevi
(supra) had already been pronounced. In the said Judgment itself, the
Constitution Bench had provided that as a one-time measure the State
should take up steps for regularization of the employees, who had
rendered the services for a period of more than 10 years. H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A 16. It is further to be noted that similarly circumstanced employees
in the employment of the State of Uttar Pradesh, who were appointed
on daily wages/contractual basis had approached the Allahabad High
Court praying for regularization of their services. The Single Judge had
dismissed the writ petitions which orders were affirmed by the Division
Bench. The said employees therein had approached this Court by way
B
of Civil Appeal No.18510 of 2017 (arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No.6183 of 2015) in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar cited supra.
It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in
the case of Sheo Narain Nagar (supra):
“The appellants were required to be appointed on regular basis as
C a one-time measure, as laid down in paragraph 53 of Umadevi
(supra). Since the appellants had completed 10 years of service
and temporary status had been given by the respondents with
retrospective effect in the 02.10.2002, we direct that the services
of the appellants be regularized from the said date i.e. 02.10.2002,
D consequential benefits and the arrears of pay also to be paid to
the appellants within a period of three months from today.”
17. Another aspect that needs consideration is that during the
pendency of the petitions, the Rules with regard to regularization were
amended which provided cut-off date of 31.12.2001. Undisputedly, all
E the appellants were appointed prior to 31.12.2001. The change in position
of law ought to have been taken into consideration by the High Court. It
is not in dispute that all the appellants were appointed prior to 31.12.2001.
Undisputedly, the appellants were continued in services from 01.08.2006
on account of interim orders passed in writ petitions. However, the
selection process in which the appellants were permitted to participate,
F could not see the light of the day, as it was subsequently cancelled in
2008. As such, as a matter of fact, when the appellants’ case was
considered for regularization by a Committee under the chairmanship of
Additional District Judge, the appellants had, in fact, put in service almost
for a period of 12 years.
G 18. As such, apart from the circular issued by the Registrar General
of the High Court dated 05.11.2009, the appellants’ cases were also
required to be taken into consideration in view of the exception carved
out in the case of Umadevi (supra). We find that the Committee under
the chairmanship of the Additional District Judge had rightly submitted
H its report dated 12.07.2012 and the then District Judge had rightly passed
RAJNISH KUMAR MISHRA & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF 77
UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ETC.
the order of regularization on 09.11.2012 granting regularization from A
01.06.2012. We find, that while considering the representation of some
of the employees for promotion, the successor in the office of the District
Judge could not have annulled the order of the regularization of the
appellants which was done after following the proper procedure. The
least that was required to be done was to follow the principles of natural
B
justice by giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellants. We find,
that the three orders passed by the District Judge dated 16.08.2014 also
suffer from violation of the principles of natural justice.
19. In any case, we find that in view of the exception carved out
in the case of Umadevi (supra) providing for one-time regularization of
employees who have completed 10 years or above; the parity of similarly C
circumstanced employees who have been granted benefit in the case of
Sheo Narain Nagar (supra) and the Rules amended in 2016 which
provide a cut-off date of 31.12.2001, the appellants are also entitled for
regularization of their services.
20. In the result: D
(1) the appeals are allowed;
(2) the Judgement and order dated 14.09.2017 passed by the
Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition
No.4813(S/S) of 2014 and Writ Petition No.5530(S/S) of E
2014 as well as Division Bench of the said High Court
dated 09.07.2018 in Special Appeal No.440 of 2017 and in
Special Appeal No.444 of 2017 are quashed and set aside;
and
(3) the orders dated 16.08.2014 passed by the District Judge, F
Ambedkar Nagar are quashed and set aside and the
consequential order of termination dated 23.9.2017 is also
quashed and set aside.
(4) the order dated 9.11.2012 passed by the District Judge,
Ambedkar Nagar regularizing the services of appellants
G
with effect from 01.06.2012 is upheld.
(5) Consequentially, the termination of the appellants from their
services is quashed and set aside and the appellants are
directed to be reinstated forthwith with continuity in service
for all the purposes including terminal benefits. However,
H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A in the facts and circumstance of the case, the appellants
would not be entitled for back wages for the period during
which they are out of employment.
21. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to
cost. All pending applications shall stand disposed of.
B
Divya Pandey Appeals allowed.
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "regularisation"Sign in to search