MALATHI DAS(RETD)NOW P.B.MAHISH Vs SURESH .
Bench: P SATHASIVAM,RANJAN GOGOI
Case number: C.A. No.-003338-003338 / 2014
Diary number: 14767 / 2007
Advocates: V. N. RAGHUPATHY Vs
RAMESH BABU M. R.
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3338 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9573 OF 2007)
Malathi Das (Retd.) Now P.B. Mahishy & Ors. ... APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
Suresh & Ors. ... RESPONDENT (S)
J U D G M E N T
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against the order dated 26.03.2007
passed by the High Court of Karnataka in a contempt
proceeding registered as CCC No. 669 of 2006. By the
aforesaid order, the High Court, after holding the appellants,
prima facie, guilty of commission of contempt has granted
them two weeks time to comply with the order in respect of
1
Page 2
which disobedience has been alleged failing which the
matter was directed to be posted for framing of charge.
Aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeal.
3. It may be necessary to briefly outline the relevant facts
on the basis of which the allegations of commission of
contempt have been made and the conclusions, indicated
above, have been reached by the High Court.
445 daily rated employees of the State serving in
different departments, including the 74 respondents herein,
had instituted W.P. Nos. 39117-176/1999 claiming
regularization of service. By order dated 15.12.1999, the
High Court following an earlier order dated 10.9.1999 passed
in similar writ petitions i.e. W.P. Nos. 33541-571/98 etc. had
granted the relief(s) claimed by the writ petitioners-
respondents. The aforesaid order dated 15.12.1999 of the
learned Single Judge was affirmed by order dated
24.01.2001 passed in the writ appeals filed by the State.
The petitions filed by the State seeking special leave to
appeal against the order dated 24.01.2001 were dismissed
2
Page 3
by this Court on 22.07.2005. Two significant facts need to
be noted at this stage. Firstly, that the order dated
10.09.1999 passed in writ petition Nos. 33541-571/1998
which was followed by the High Court while deciding the writ
petitions (Writ Petition Nos. 39117-176/1999) filed by the
respondents had been implemented by the State
Government by granting regularization to the petitioners
therein. The second significant fact that would require to be
noticed is that following the dismissal of the special leave
petitions filed by the State by order dated 22.07.2005, a
Scheme dated 29.12.2005 was framed by the State
Government to implement the order dated 15.12.1999
passed in the writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 39117-176/1999).
161 persons who had filed contempt proceedings for non-
compliance of the order dated 15.12.1999 were regularized
on 29.12.2005. Thereafter, on 8.3.2006, 64 other persons,
who were similarly placed to the aforesaid 161 persons as
well as to the present 74 respondents, were also regularized.
Such regularization was made without the concerned
persons having to initiate any contempt proceeding. The
3
Page 4
cases of the other petitioners in W.P. Nos.39117-76/1999
were, however, not considered.
4. Consequently, 129 employees, including the 74
respondents herein whose case were not being considered
by the State instituted another contempt proceeding being
CCC No.67/2006. By Government Order dated 18.04.2006,
55 out of the aforesaid 129 employees were regularized
while the claim of the remaining 74 employees (respondents
herein) were not responded to. Accordingly, the Contempt
Petition (CCC No. 67/2006) was heard and closed by the High
Court by its order dated 20.06.2006 granting the
respondents “eight weeks’ time to pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law on the claim made by
the complainants for regularization of their services
in the office of the respondent authorities ……” As no
action was initiated pursuant to the aforesaid order of the
High Court, the present contempt petition i.e. CCC No.
669/2006 was lodged by the 74 respondents. During the
pendency of the aforesaid contempt petition the claim of
4
Page 5
regularization of respondents was rejected by specific orders
passed on the ground that the claimants do not fulfill the
conditions for regularization as laid down by this Court in
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi
(3) and Others1. Some of the said orders/endorsements
were illustratively brought on record which demonstrate that
the stand of the authorities with regard to the 74
respondents herein is that none of them fulfill/satisfy the
conditions enumerated in paragraph 53 of the judgment in
Umadevi (supra) as essential for the purpose of
regularization. On a detailed consideration of the facts of
the case, particularly, the fact that the writ petitions as well
as the writ appeals arising therefrom as also the order of this
Court dated 22.07.2005 dismissing the special leave
petitions filed by the State were prior in point of time to the
decision of this Court in Umadevi (supra) [decided on
10.04.2006], the High Court took the view, as already noted,
in its order dated 26.03.2007 which has given rise to the
present appeal.
1 (2006) 4 SCC 1
5
Page 6
5. We have heard Shri K.N. Bhat, learned senior counsel
for the appellants and Shri Guru Krishna Kumar, learned
senior counsel for the respondents.
6. Shri Bhat, learned senior counsel for the appellants has
drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that
regularization in terms of the initial order of the High Court
dated 10.09.1999 passed in W.P. Nos. 33541-571/1999 as
well as regularization in part i.e. 161, 64 and 55 number of
employees out of the 445 petitioners who had instituted writ
petition Nos. 39117-176/1999, were prior to the judgment of
this Court in Umadevi (supra). Shri Bhat has submitted
that in terms of the directions in Umadevi (supra) while
regularizations already made are not to be re-opened,
matters subjudice are to be governed by the conditions
mentioned in Umadevi (supra) and only on existence
thereof regularization could be made. According to the
learned counsel as none of the respondents herein satisfy
the said conditions the impugned refusals to regularize the
6
Page 7
service of the respondents have been made by the
authorities of the State.
7. On the other hand, Shri Guru Krishna Kumar, learned
senior counsel for the respondents, has submitted that the
writ petitions as well as the writ appeals and the special
leave petitions filed in connection with the regularization of
the respondents stood concluded on 15.12.1999, 24.01.2001
and 22.07.2005 respectively, all of which dates are prior to
the decision in Umadevi (supra). It is contended that as all
the proceedings concerning the regularization of the
respondents had attained finality prior to the decision of this
Court in Umadevi (supra) the regularization of the
respondents cannot be understood to be sub-judice.
Learned counsel has further urged that 161, 64 and 55
number of persons from the batch of 445 writ petitioners
who are identically placed as the respondents have been
regularized. In fact, according to learned counsel, the batch
of 55 employees have been regularized on 18.04.2006 i.e.
after 10.04.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi (supra)).
7
Page 8
Learned counsel has also submitted that during the
pendency of the present proceeding as many as 7 other
persons, out of the batch of 445 writ petitioners, have also
been regularized. It is accordingly submitted that in such
circumstances on the principle of parity itself the entitlement
of the respondents to be regularized cannot be doubted or
disputed. The appellants, therefore, are clearly guilty of
contempt and the impugned order of the High Court does
not warrant any interference.
8. It is not in dispute that the original batch of employees
who had filed writ petition Nos. 33541-571/1998 on the basis
of which the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein
(W.P. Nos. 39117-176/1999) were allowed by the order dated
15.12.1999 have been regularized. It is also not in dispute
that out of the 445 employees who had filed writ petition
Nos.39117-176/1999, by separate government orders, the
service of 161, 64 and 55 employees have been regularized
in three batches. The records placed before the Court would
indicate that 7 other persons have been regularized during
8
Page 9
the pendency of the present appeal. In a situation where a
Scheme had been framed on 29.12.2005 to give effect to the
order of the High Court dated 15.12.1999 passed in the writ
petitions filed by the respondents herein and many of the
similarly situated persons have been regularized pursuant
thereto the action of the appellants in not granting
regularization to the present respondents cannot appear to
be sound or justified. The fact that the regularization of 55
employees, similarly situated to the present respondents,
was made on 18.04.2006 i.e. after the decision of this Court
in Umadevi (supra) is also not in serious dispute though Shri
Bhat, learned senior counsel for the appellants, has tried to
contend that the said regularizations were made prior to the
decision in Umadevi (supra). The date of the order of
regularization of the 55 persons i.e. 18.4.2006 will leave no
doubt or ambiguity in the matter. In the aforesaid
undisputed facts it is wholly unnecessary for us to consider
as to whether the cases of persons who were awaiting
regularization on the date of the decision in Umadevi
(supra) is required to be dealt with in accordance with the
9
Page 10
conditions stipulated in para 53 of Umadevi (supra)
inasmuch as the claims of the respondent employees can
well be decided on principles of parity. Similarly placed
employees having been regularized by the State and in case
of some of them such regularization being after the decision
in Umadevi (supra) we are of the view that the stand taken
by the appellants in refusing regularization to the
respondents cannot be countenanced. However, as the said
stand of the appellants stem from their perception and
understanding of the decision in Umadevi (supra) we do not
hold them liable for contempt but make it clear that the
appellants and all the other competent authorities of the
State will now be obliged and duty bound to regularize the
services of the respondents (74 in number) which will now
be done forthwith and in any case within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of this order.
9. The appeal shall stand disposed of in the above terms.
...…………………………CJI. [P. SATHASIVAM]
1
Page 11
.........………………………J. [RANJAN GOGOI]
NEW DELHI, MARCH 7, 2014.
1