STATE OF U.P. Vs PARMANAND SHUKLA (D) THR. LRS
Bench: FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
Case number: C.A. No.-011525-011525 / 2014
Diary number: 2913 / 2010
Advocates: ARDHENDUMAULI KUMAR PRASAD Vs
ANURAG KISHORE
Page 1
NON- REPORTABLE [
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11525 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 10968 of 2010)
State of U.P. & Ors. .…Appellant(s)
Versus
Parmanand Shukla (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. ….Respondents(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre,J.
1. Leave granted
2. This civil appeal is filed by the State of U.P.
against the judgment dated 31.07.2009 passed by
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 854 of 2009
1
Page 2
which in turn arises out of judgment dated
24.01.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2479 of 2001.
3. By impugned judgment, the Division Bench
dismissed the intra Court appeal filed by the State
and in consequence affirmed the order of the
learned Single Judge who had partly allowed the
writ petition filed by the original respondent
herein, since dead, and now represented by his
legal representatives as respondent nos. 1 to 9 to
continue the lis which was the subject matter of
the deceased's writ petition.
4. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass
so also the controversy, which has narrowed down
to short issue on account of subsequent events
occurring during the pendency of this appeal
2
Page 3
requiring no elaborate discussion to adjudicate
any legal issue arising in this case.
5. A batch of writ petitions, one consisted of 48
persons (writ petitioners), other with less number
of persons and some by individuals came to be
filed against the State of UP and its Irrigation
Department. These writ petitions were filed with
intervals. However, in all these writ petitions
whether filed collectively or/and individually, the
grievance raised therein was identical in nature so
also the reliefs claimed by the writ petitioners
against the State/Irrigation Department. It was
also founded on identical facts and grounds.
6. In substance, the grievance of the writ
petitioners (employees) against the State was that
these writ petitioners were engaged by the State
as daily waged muster roll employees by the
3
Page 4
Irrigation Department of Gandak Region to work in
their various divisions way back in the year 1982
and onwards. They alleged that they continued to
work till 1990 regularly when their services were
disengaged resulting in filing of the writ petition
(W.P. No. 45752/99) by these terminated
employees for grant of appropriate relief against
the State. The High Court came to their rescue and
by order dated 21.03.2001 directed the State to
dispose of the representations filed by the writ
petitioners keeping in view the principle of last
come first go. The State again discontinued their
services in the year 2001 which again gave rise to
the filing of the aforesaid batch of writ petitions by
the terminated employees. One leading writ
petition filed by 48 such employees was
C.M.W.P.No 29545/2001 .
4
Page 5
7. This writ petition was allowed by the learned
Single Judge by order 17.01.2003 along with one
more writ petition being C.M.W.P.No 29547/2001
in part wherein the High Court set aside the order
dated 07.07.2001 passed by the Executive
Engineer by which the services of the petitioners
were terminated and accordingly directed the
State to draw a list of the petitioners as well as of
other employees alike them on the basis of their
initial engagement in State service and then by
offering them either daily wage employment or
regular employment, if available and if needed by
the concerned Divisions, in the State service. The
State, felt aggrieved, filed S.A.No.737/2003 before
the Division Bench. The Division Bench dismissed
the appeal vide order dated 01.09.2004 and
affirmed the directions issued by the learned
5
Page 6
Single Judge. The State pursued the matter to this
Court by filing S.L.P. No…..CC342/2005 against the
order of the Division Bench. This Court by order
dated 20.01.2005 dismissed the SLP.
8. So far as the original respondent of this
appeal, namely, Mr. Parmanand Shukla was
concerned, he filed his individual writ petition
being W.P. No. 2479 of 2001 claiming therein the
same reliefs, which were the subject matter of the
aforesaid batch of writ petitions/writ appeals/SLPs.
According to him, he too was working like other
writ petitioners as muster roll daily wage
employee in the same Irrigation Department of
State of U.P. from 1986 till 2000 when his services
were brought to an end along with others giving
rise to filing of the writ petition challenging his
6
Page 7
termination order and for claiming regularization
in the services.
9. However, the writ petition filed by the original
respondent herein was not clubbed with the
aforesaid batch and the same remained pending.
It was, however, allowed by the learned Single
Judge by order 24.01.2007 in the light of leading
order passed by the Single Judge in W.P.No
29545/2001 on 17.01.2003 which was by that time
allowed by the learned Single and upheld by the
Division Bench and even by this Court by
dismissing the State's special leave to appeal. In
other words, the respondent's writ petition was
allowed and he too was granted the same
benefits, which were granted to all the writ
petitioners in the aforementioned batch of writ
petitions so as to maintain the parity and judicial
7
Page 8
consistency in passing similar orders in identical
nature of writ petitions.
10. However, the State instead of giving benefit
of the order of the High Court to respondent
pursued the matter and filed intra court Appeal
being S.A. No. 854/2009 in the High Court out of
which this appeal arises. The Division Bench, by
impugned order, dismissed the State's appeal and
affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. It is
against the said order, the State has filed this
appeal.
11. During the pendency of this appeal, the
original respondent (writ petitioner) Parmanand
Shukla left this world on 14.04.2013 leaving
behind his wife, 5 unmarried daughters, one minor
son, old father and mother. They were brought on
8
Page 9
record as his legal representatives as respondent
Nos. 1-9 to contest this appeal.
12. On 30.06.2014, this Court observed that
consequent upon the death of original respondent
(Parmanand Shukla), the benefit of reinstatement
order passed by the High Court in his favour was
no longer available to him and hence the matter
can be amicably settled by directing the appellant
(State) to settle the whole claim to the limited
extent of payment of 50% of whatever benefits for
which the respondent would have been found
entitled.
13. Accordingly, by orders dated 04.08.2014 and
25.8.2014, this Court granted time to the parties
to furnish details as to the amounts that would be
payable to the original respondent by way of
services rendered by him and also his claim of
9
Page 10
back wages payable for the period between the
date of his termination and death. The
respondents have accordingly filed the details
along with the affidavit dated 06.09.2014. So far
as the appellant (State) is concerned, they have
not filed any details nor filed any affidavit and has
left the issue to be decided by this Court having
regard to the totality of the circumstances.
14. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and also perused the entire record of the
case.
15. As mentioned above, this Court has already
upheld the main order passed by the High Court
on 01.09.2004 in S.A. No. 737/2003 which had
arisen out of the order dated 17.01.2003 passed
by the learned Single Judge in main W.P.No
29545/2001 when SLP No…..CC342/2005 filed by
1
Page 11
the State was dismissed by this Court on
20.01.2005 (Annexure-R-1). It was not disputed
that the present case though came to be decided
later in point of time, but it was identical in nature
with the cases which were the subject matter of
SLP No…..CC342/2005 and hence the case in hand
was rightly disposed of by the learned Single Judge
and then by the Division Bench by placing reliance
on the said judgments passed in identical cases by
the High Court. In other words, the original
respondent of this case was also entitled to claim
the same benefits, which were granted to other
similarly situated employees like him by the High
Court. Since the original respondent, in the
meantime, died and was deprived of the benefit of
enjoying the relief of reinstatement in State
services along with other similarly situated
1
Page 12
employees, he was at least entitled to be
compensated by paying money compensation to
enable his large family to survive due to his
untimely death. At least, in our view, his claim to
this extent survived.
16. As observed supra, since this Court has
already dismissed the State’s SLP arising out of
the main case on which the impugned order in
question is founded and hence, we are not inclined
to entertain any legal submission again though
urged by the learned counsel for the appellant and
nor in our view, there arises any scope for the
appellant to again press any legal submission in
this appeal and revive the controversy which has
otherwise attained finality.
17. Coming to the question as to what relief the
respondents are now entitled to get in this appeal
1
Page 13
in the light of subsequent events, which occurred
during the pendency of this appeal i.e., death of
Parmanand Shukla (original respondent), we are of
the view that the respondents are only entitled to
receive money compensation from the appellant
(State) in lieu of the deceased’s right to claim
reinstatement in service and also his right to
receive any claim of back wages, if any. Indeed
on this question, the appellant did not join any
issue seriously. We have, accordingly, examined
the case for grant of this relief.
18. Keeping in view the statement of details of
payment of monthly salary filed by the
respondents-Legal Representatives coupled with
other material factors to enable this Court to work
out a reasonable amount of compensation payable
to the original respondent such as - the length of
1
Page 14
the service of the deceased, his age, total length
of service rendered, rates of daily wages payable
to muster roll employees in State of UP from time
to time in the last three decades, and lastly large
number of surviving dependents (8) in the family,
we are of the considered opinion that the interest
of justice would demand that the respondents are
to be paid in lump sum a total sum of Rs. 10 Lacs
(Rs. Ten Lacs) by the appellant-State in full and
final settlement of all the claims arising out of this
litigation relating to the service of the original
respondent- Parmanand Shukla.
19. Let the amount of Rs. 10 Lacs (Rs. Ten
Lacs) be paid to the respondent - Smt Kiran Devi -
wife of the deceased Parmanand Shukla by the
appellant (State of UP) within three months by
account payee cheque/DD.
1
Page 15
20. With these directions, the appeal stands
disposed of.
…………………………………………………J. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA]
.….…...............................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
New Delhi; December 18, 2014
1