Non­Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10303 OF 2010

The Chief Engineer (General) Public Works Department & Ors.            …..Appellant(s)

VERSUS

S. Patrajan   …..Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1.   This appeal is directed against the final

judgment and order dated 29.10.2008 of the High

Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal

No.2707 of 1999 whereby the Division Bench of the

High Court allowed the appeal filed by the

respondent  herein and set aside the order  dated

1

08.04.1989 passed by the Single Judge of the High

Court in Writ Petition No.10708 of 1991.

2. The issue involved in this appeal is very short

as would be clear from the narration of facts

hereinbelow.

3. The appellants are  the officials  of the Public

Works Department (PWD) of the State of Tamil Nadu

and thus represent the interest of the State of Tamil

Nadu  in this  case.  The respondent  claimed  to  be

working in the PWD of the State of Tamil Nadu as

NMR Electrical helper  (skilled worker) since 1977.

The respondent claimed to be working in the

Electrical wing of PWD till  October 1990 when he

complained that his services were discontinued.

This gave rise to filing of the writ petition (WP No.

10708 of 1991) by the respondent in the High Court

of Madras in July, 1991 wherein he prayed to treat

2

him as continuing in service since inception (1977)

and also for regularization in the State services and,

in consequence, to award him all the service

benefits including monetary benefits as regular

State employee etc.  

4. The  Single  Judge of the  High  Court,  by  his

order dated 08.04.1999, dismissed the writ petition

on the ground that the remedy of  the respondent

herein lies in approaching the  appropriate forum

under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The

respondent felt  aggrieved and  filed an  intra  court

appeal before the Division Bench.

5.  By impugned order, the Division Bench of the

High Court allowed the writ appeal and directed the

appellants to reinstate the respondent and pay 50%

of the back wages, which has given rise to filing of

the present appeal by way of special  leave by the

3

PWD, State of Tamil Nadu through the

aforementioned State officials in this Court.

6. Heard Ms. Maitreyee Mishra, learned counsel

for the appellants and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan,

learned senior counsel for the respondent.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are inclined to dispose of this appeal as indicated

below.

8. At the outset, it  was stated by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties that the

respondent(employee) has long back attained the

age of superannuation and, therefore, so far as the

direction to reinstate him in service of the PWD is

concerned, the same is rendered ineffective and,

therefore, it cannot be given effect to.     

4

9. It is  not in dispute that  the respondent was

working with the PWD of the State of Tamil Nadu for

a long time and rendered his services as a skilled

worker from 1977 till 1991.   

10. Having regard to the totality of the

circumstances appearing in the case, we are of the

opinion that interest of justice would demand that

this  appeal is  disposed of finally  by directing the

appellants to pay in lump sum an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/­  (one lakh) to the respondent  in full

and final satisfaction of all his claims arising out of

this case.  

11. In other words, once the  appellants pay a sum

of Rs.1,00,000/­ (one lakh) to the respondent, the

respondent will have no claim of any nature against

the appellants in relation to his services and all the

5

disputes including the one  which is the subject

matter of this appeal stand decided.

12. We, however, make it clear that this order is

passed due to peculiar facts involved in the case at

hand. This order will  not,  therefore, be treated as

precedent to claim  a relief of this  nature in any

other case by any workman against the appellants.   

13. In the light of the order that we have passed, it

is not necessary to consider any other legal

submissions urged by the parties, we, therefore,

decline  to  examine the  legal issues arising  in the

case and dispose of the appeal with the

aforementioned directions.

14. The appellants would pay the aforementioned

amount to the respondent within 3 months from the

date of this order.  

6

15. The appeal stands accordingly disposed of

finally.

                                    .……...................................J.                     [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

                                    .……...................................J.                     [S. ABDUL NAZEER]

New Delhi, September 20, 2018.

7