1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10806 OF  2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7358 of 2018)

THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.  ….          APPELLANTS

:Versus:

BALIRAM SINGH & ORS. ….      RESPONDENTS  

J U D G M E N T

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from the final judgment and  order

dated 15th January, 2018 in L.P.A. No.2307 of 2016 passed by

the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna

whereby the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge

in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22208 of 2013 dated 22nd

August, 2016 allowing the writ petition preferred by the

2

respondents  inter alia  for relief of  payment of salary for the

period from 1st  October, 2001 till 3rd  July, 2007 and

consequently directing the appellants to pay the amount

towards salary for the said period had been upheld.

3. The respondents filed a writ petition initially praying for a

direction against the appellants to make payment of salary to

them for the period from 1st October, 2001 till 3rd July, 2007,

along  with statutory interest.  By  way  of an  amendment, a

further relief was claimed to issue a writ of mandamus to the

appellants to give continuity of past services to the

respondents taking into account the period from 1st October,

2001 till 3rd July, 2007 for the purpose of making payment of

salary to the respondents for the said period. The respondents

asserted that they were appointed as Adult Education

Supervisors between 1981 and 1987 pursuant to

advertisements published between 1979 and 1983. It is stated

that 771 posts of Adult Education Supervisor were abolished

in terms of the decision of the State Government after

3

adjusting the remaining  367 supervisors  who continued to

work until the abolition of the posts in the year 1991.  

4. These termination orders were challenged by the

association of the respondents, namely, the Bihar State Adult

and Non­Formal Education Employees Association, by way of

CWJC No.5036 of  1992.  That  writ  petition was disposed of

along  with connected cases vide judgment  dated  24th  May,

19961. Paragraph Nos.36 and 37 of the judgment read thus:

“36. There is no doubt that petitioners’ initial appointments were made to a scheme which was purely temporary, therefore, it may not be possible for me to ask the respondent authorities to regularize their services. But I have already noticed that their appointments were made as per the  prescribed  norms of the  Government  after  proper advertisement etc. I have also noticed that having regard to their past services rendered continuously for ten to fourteen years, the State authorities had themselves absorbed at least 771 of such Supervisors and for rest steps were under contemplation. Petitioners have also been able to establish successfully that the  decision  of the  authorities to  cancel such adjustment was not only malafide rather shameful. But now a stand is being taken by the respondents that those 771 posts were also temporary hence a decision was taken to terminate the petitioners. Therefore, in these backgrounds, it would not be proper to quash the order of petitioners’ termination.

37. But it cannot be ignored that having regard to the long services rendered by the petitioners, administrative

1 The Bihar State Adult and Non­Formal Education Employees Association and Ors. Vs.  The State of Bihar and Ors. 1996 SCC Online Pat 235;(1996) 2 PLJR 394

4

authorities had suggested steps for their absorption even in other departments. Therefore, having taken into consideration entire facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of the writ petitions with the following direction to the respondent­authorities: (a) to allow the petitioners and interveners to continue against these 771 posts, against which they were adjusted in terms of the letter of the concerned department, dated 19th December, 1990. But such adjustment is to be made as per their seniority or (b) in case those posts have also been abolished, take steps to absorb/adjust the petitioners along with the interveners in a similar manner, the employees of Consolidation Department were adjusted or (c) if for any justified reason condition nos. (a) or (b) are not possible, take a decision similar to the State of Uttar Pradesh, which I have already indicated in paragraph no.18 of this order and adjust/absorb them accordingly. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, I could  not  persuade  myself to  quash  the impugned order. With the aforesaid directions/observations, these writ applications are, thus, disposed of. But the parties are left to bear their own costs.”

5. Consequent to the said decision, the appellants

appointed the respondents in the Non­Formal Education

Scheme/Adult Education Scheme vide order dated 15th March,

1998. The said order reads thus:  

“The Government of Bihar Secondary, Primary and Adult Education Department

Office Order Patna, date: 15th March, 98

No.24/Mu. 5­042/92 P.E. 112/C.W.J.C.­5036/92

1. In the light of order passed on the date of 24.5.96 by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.­5036/92 and other annexed petitions and in the light of order passed on the date of 26.11.97 in M.J.C. No.­2884/96 and 3172/96, against the sanctioned and vacant posts of the Project

5

Officers, under Informal Dist. Public Education Program under Public Education Directorate, to the following service relieved Adult  Education Supervisors along with the other allowances payable from time to time by the Government, in pay­scale­1600­50­2300­60­2700, making appointment in temporary way on the post of Project Officer under Informal Education, order is passed to make joining in Public Education Directorate, Bihar Patna.  

S.N. Name Amended/ Provisional

Home District Dist. From where retrenchment was made

1. Mrs. Kalyani Devi

1 Bhagalpur Pakud

2. 2 3. 3 4. 5. 453 Mr. Panna Lal

Yadav 500 W. Singhbhum W. Singhbhum

2. Aforesaid all appointed employees at the time of joining, shall  submit necessarily Medical Certificate issued by Civil Surgeon.  

3. This appointment shall be deemed fresh appointment, resultantly their earlier services shall not be calculated for their pension,/ promotion/ time bound promotion etc.

4. If by the aforesaid employees, their earlier charges are not handed over, then only after handing over earlier charge, joining shall be made at new posted place.

5. To all aforesaid employees only starting salary of pay­scale mentioned in this letter shall be payable immediately.

6. The service of all aforesaid employees shall be under policy  and principle of Informal  Education  Program/Adult Education Program.

6

7. The service  conditions  of  aforesaid  all  appointed employees shall be deemed under circulars issued earlier in the context of retrenchment and adjustment by the Personnel Department and Finance Department.  8. On being any kind of alteration in Sl. No. in amended Provisional Seniority List prepared by Public Education Directorate, Bihar, Patna, alteration may be made in the post of employees mentioned in this letter also.  

9. If during review by Public Education Directorate, proof is found of arrear or defalcation against any aforesaid employee, then action shall be taken for its recovery. If against any employee serious charges are found or their service is found unsatisfactory, then  their  service  may be terminated.  

10. The aforesaid appointed employees shall submit affidavit in the context of their appointment at the time of joining  stating  therein  that, their  appointment is  made  in formal way and as per rule and if in future their appointment is found illegal/irregular, then their service shall be terminated and they shall be liable to punishment.  

11. The employee who was appointed on the post of Project Officer, under informal education for the period of three years on the basis of contract earlier in category of  Adult  Education  Supervisor and  whose service  was extended up to December, 97, his appointment also shall be deemed fresh appointment.  

12. Aforesaid all appointed employees shall make joining in Public Education Directorate, Bihar, Patna within one month from date of issuance of this letter, otherwise their appointment shall be terminated.

Sd./­dated 15­3­98 [Vishnu Kumar]  

Director, Public Education, Bihar, Patna

Memo no.­412/Patna, Date: 15 March 1998 Copy sent to;­Accountant General, Bihar, Patna/Ranchi for information and necessary action.

Sd./­dated 15­3­98

7

[Vishnu Kumar]  

Director, Public Education, Bihar, Patna  

Memo no.­412/Patna, Date: 15 March 1998 Copy sent to:­ The Treasury Officer, Vikas Bhawan, Patna Secretariat for information and necessary action.

Sd./­dated 15­3­98 [Vishnu Kumar]  

Director, Public Education, Bihar, Patna

Memo no.­412/Patna, Date: 15 March 1998 Copy sent to:­ All Dist.  Magistrates/all Dy. Development Commissioner/all Dist. Public Education Officer/all Assistant Driector, Informal Education for  information and necessary action.  

Sd./­dated 15­3­98 [Vishnu Kumar]  

Director, Public Education, Bihar, Patna

Memo no.­412/Patna, Date: 15 March 1998 Copy sent to:­ All concerned employees……………………………………..for information and necessary action.

Sd./­dated 15­3­98 [Vishnu Kumar]  

Director, Public Education, Bihar, Patna

Memo no.­412/Patna, Date: 15 March 1998

Copy sent to:­ The Secretary, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education  Department, Bihar, Patna for information and necessary action.  

Sd./­dated 15­3­98 [Vishnu Kumar]  

Director, Public Education, Bihar, Patna

Memo no.­412/Patna, Date: 15 March 1998

[True Translated Copy]”

(emphasis supplied)

8

6. Be it noted that the appointment of the respondents to

the post of Project Officer was a fresh appointment. The

respondents accepted the said terms and conditions of

appointment and none of the respondents challenged the

same. The scheme, in respect of which the respondents were

appointed, was abolished w.e.f. 1st April, 2001, as a result of

which all  of them came to be terminated. The respondents,

however, neither challenged the policy decision to abolish the

scheme under which the Informal Education Programme

Scheme was implemented by the State Government nor their

termination order. Indeed, some of the affected persons

challenged their order of termination by way of writ petitions.

We shall advert to this aspect a little latter.  

7. It is indisputable that the State Government took a policy

decision on 20th May, 2005 to adjust all the 1427 retrenched

employees. The policy is reflected in the resolution,  which

reads thus:  

“State of Bihar Department of Human Resources Development

(Primary and Adult Education)

9

Resolution        Patna Dated:­ May, 2005.

Like other states in State of Bihar, Informal Education Program  in the form  of  Central sponsored  programe  was managed in order to arrange primary education to such children who are aged about 6­14 years and not going to government school for study. Central Government and State Government were bearing the expenses incurred in this programe in specified ratio. The  Central  Government  has taken decision to stop Informal Education Programe and to regulate the  Education  Guarantee Program/Objective and Navachari Education Programe with effect from 01.04.2001 for the  purpose  of this  object.  Subsequently the following employees for informal Education Program were retrenched with effect from 01.04.2001.  

S. No .

Post Name Req. qualification

Salary No. Reentrant

Emp. 1. Project Officer Graduation 5,000­

8,000 316

2. Clerk Cum Accnt. Matric 4,000­ 6,000

346

3. Clerk Cum Typist Matric 4,000­ 6,000

346

4. Stenographer  Matric 4,000­ 6,000

1

5. Driver Literate 3,050­ 4,590

30

6. Peon Literate 2,550­ 3,200

370

Total 1,427   

2. The matter of a adjustment of 1427 retrenched employees under the aforesaid explained in formal education programe was pending before the government. State government has taken decision for adjustment of the retrenched employees against the available vacancies in different departments in the following manners:­

J. The concerned retrenched employee shall be adjusted on such post for  which  he possesses the

10

required prescribed educational  qualification and no new post shall be created for him.

B. They shall be adjusted for the same salary at which they were retrenched. In case of unavailability of post/vacancy and upon furnishing their written consent, retrenched employees shall also be adjusted at minimum salary.   C. The reservation roster shall, necessarily be complied with. The retrenched employees shall be adjusted against the roster  point  of the same class, they belong to.  

D. The maximum limit of age shall be exhausted for adjustment.  

E. In the light recommendation of personnel and administrative reforms department, as per the definition of retrenched employees mentioned in their resolution no.­209 dated 06.07.92,  Public  Education Director shall prepare, self sufficient panel, in the light of advice of learned counsel, all 1,427 employees have been deemed to be retrenched.  

F. The direct recruitment shall not be­stopped in series of adjustment in different departments. The Public Education Director shall initiate proceedings to mark the post for the purpose of adjustment in different departments.  

G. Consent of Bihar Employees Selection Commission is  not  necessary in filing the  marked  post through adjustment.  

H. According to availability of vacancies, the appointments shall be made from such panel time to time through adjustment after obtaining the approval of chief secretary. Chief Secretary must be empowered by the governor  or  Council  of  Ministers of  State for giving such approval.

I. The adjustment of retrenched employees shall be deemed to be  a new appointment.  They shall

11

not get the benefit of seniority on the basis of their service before being retrenched. But the period of service prior to retrenchment shall be used for pension purpose.  

J. The retrenched employees whose immediate adjustment is not done due to unavailability of vacancy, after preparing their list they shall be adjusted  against vacancy  post  available in  next five years.  

       By the order of Governor of Bihar.  SD/illegible­Vijay Prakash

        Secretary       Primary and Adult Education

   20/5/2005”

 (emphasis supplied)

8. Even this policy makes it amply clear that the

adjustment of retrenched employees was to be a new

appointment and the employees would not get the benefit of

seniority on the basis of their services before being retrenched.

However, the period of service prior to retrenchment would be

reckoned for pension purposes only. Even this policy has not

been challenged by the respondents.  

9. The respondents eventually came to be appointed

pursuant to the letter dated 16th March, 2007. The said letter

reads thus:

12

“Letter no.­13/Est. 15­05/06 270/ The Government of Bihar

Human Resource Development Department From,  

Dr. Madan Mohan Jha Commissioner­cum­Secretary.

To,  Commissioner­cum­Secretary, Food and Supply Department, Bihar, Patna.   Patna, Date: 16 March, 2007

Subject:­About the  adjustment  on  the  posts  equivalent  of Supervisors of Adult Public Education, in the compliance of  order  passed by the Hon’ble Patna High  Court in  C.W.J.C.  No.­5036/92  and  M.J.C. No.­2884/96, in course of Resolution No.­582 dated 20.05.05 and 1638 dated 11.10.06 passed by the State Government.  

Sir,

1. In the context of aforesaid subjects, as per instruction, it is to say that, a decision is taken by the State Government of re­adjustment against the vacant posts equivalent to supervisory category under different departments, of the employees of concerned Adult Education Supervisor Category, in context of which decision was taken of adjustment in other departments as consequence of conclusion of Informal Education Program with effect from date 01.04.01 and whose adjustment was made in year 1998 under Informal Education Program on account of wants of posts, for some time against the post of clerk, the employees of Adult Education Supervisor Category, concerned with Resolution No.­582 dated 20.05.05 for the adjustment against the vacancies available in different Departments/Offices, of retrenched employees of Informal Education Program. In this context, the copy of Resolution No.­582 dated 20.05.05 and Resolution No.­1638 dated 11.10.06 are annexed.

Vide Letter  No.­646 dated 25.03.05 of  the Food and Supply  Department, on the  basis of said  decision of the Government and option received for adjustment from

13

employees against the communicated rest vacancies of Supply  Inspector, for  the appointment/adjustment in pay­ scale [5000­8000] against vacant posts of Supply Inspector, under Food and Supply Department, of the following retrenched employees of Adult Education Supervisory Category:­

S. No.

Name Reservatio n Category

D.O.B. Home  Dist.

Date of First joining on the post of Adult Education Supervisor

Presently in which office department adjusted or to be adjusted

1. Swarn Lata Fransis  

S.T. 25.06.58 Kodrama 01.03.82 Clerk in the Office of D.S.I. Samastipur

2. Dinesh Chandra Manjhi

S.T. 02.04.56 Giridih 05.03.82 R.D.E.D. Darbhanga

3. Rasique Murm

S.T. 03.01.57 Dumka 13.04.82 R.D.E.D. Darbhanga

4. Munshi Murmu

S.T. 03.01.57 Dumka 14.04.82 R.D.E.D. Darbhanga

5. Thiyophil Tuddu

S.T. 12.08.49 Dumka 15.04.82 Clerk in the Office of S. Madhubani

6. Timothy Marandi

S.T. 19.04.55 Dumka 27.01.83 Clerk in the P.T.E.C. Ghoghradih Madhubani

7. Jagnath Singh

S.T. 16.01.58 Ranchi 01.09.84 R.D.E.D. Darbhanga

8. Kumari Usha Kiran

W.B.C.­1 05.06.56 Patna 21.05.80 W. Supervisor C.D.P. Badhara Bhjojpur

9. Bhagwan Osta

B.C.­1 16.07.49 Dumka 15.06.81 Office of Dist. Magistrate, Katihar

10. Radha Prasad Verma

B.C.­1 30.07.51 Palamu 15.01.82 Dis. Magistrate Purnia

11. Devendra Thakur

B.C.­1 09.03.54 Bhojpur 06.08.82 Recommended in Welfare Department

12. Muneshwa r Prasad

B.C.­1 25.09.52 Gaya 06.08.82 Clerk in Sub Divisional Office Masaodi

13. Moise Ansari

B.C.­1 05.02.57 E. Champaran

06.08.82 Dist. Magistrate Gopalganj

14. Ramayan Choudhary

B.C.­1 03.12.55 W. Champaran

07.08.82 Dist. Magistrate W. Champaran

14

15. Arjun Mahto

B.C.­2 24.01.58 Palamu 15.01.82 Welfare Department

16. Arvind Kumar

B.C.­2 02.01.59 Ranchi 15.01.82 Recommended on the post of accountant welfare department

17. Krishna Kumari

B.C.­2 30.08.56 Vaishali 27.02.82 Welfare Department

18. Raj Kishore

B.C.­2 09.08.59 Hazaribagh 01.03.82 Recommended on the post of clerk in Youth sports art & cultural depart.

19. Manohar Ram Madani

B.C.­2 18.07.55 Giridih 03.03.82 Clerk in 04 Bihar Batalian N.C.C. Bhagalpur

20. Gangadhar Mandal

B.C.­2 10.09.58 Dhanbad 05.03.82 Clerk in Office of 23 Bihar Batalian N.C.C. Bhagalpur

21. Abdula Kasmi

B.C.­2 11.04.55 Ranchi 22.03.82 Recommended on the post of accountant in welfare department

22. Sudhir Kumar Gupta

B.C.­2 31.12.48 Bhagalpur 13.04.82 Recommended on the post of clerk in Youth Sports Art & Culture Depart.

23. Om Prakash Mandal

B.C.­2 24.05.54 Deoghar 14.04.82 Recommended on the post of clerk in Youth Sports Art & Culture Depart.

24. Ganesh Prasad Umar

B.C.­2 02.01.52 Deoghar 20.04.82 Recommended on the post of clerk in Youth Sports Art & Culture Depart.

25. Suraj Prasad

B.C.­2 22.06.48 E. Champaran

06.08.82 D.M. W. Champaran

26. Sudha Rani Jaiswal

B.C.­2 01.08.52 E. Champaran

06.08.82 Recommended on the post of clerk in Youth Sports Art & Culture Depart.

27. Krishna Kumar Prasad

B.C.­2 08.06.53 Gopalganj 06.08.82 Recommended in Welfare Department

28. Narendra B.C.­2 28.01.56 Nalanda 06.08.82 Recommended in

15

Dev Welfare Department 29. Dasrath

Singh Yadav

B.C.­2 15.10.57 Palamu 26.12.82 Recommended on the post of clerk in welfare department

30. Kamal Kumar Jaisawal

B.C.­2 02.03.61 Godda 27.01.83 Welfare department

31. Rama Mahto

B.C.­2 07.07.50 Palamu 01.05.83 Welfare department

32. Dilip Kumar Maiti  

B.C.­2 11.04.58 E. Singhbhum

24.08.84 Recommended in Welfare Department

33. Shoukat Ara

B.C.­2 16.03.48 Purnia 02.02.85 Recommended in Welfare Department

34. Naresh  Kr. Jaiswal

B.C.­2 05.01.58 Saharsa 18.04.85 Recommended in Welfare Department

35. Mira Kumara

General  19.07.50 Purnia 05.02.80 Child Development Office, Purnia

36. Dineshwar Pathak

General  17.08.54 E. Champaran

11.06.81 D.M. Office Purnia

37. Krishna Kumar  

General 01.08.55 Palamu 15.01.82 Youth sports, art & culture depart.

38. Sharmasip tansu Konar

General 01.01.54 Dhanbad 27.02.82 I.C.D.S. Social Welfare  Department, Bihar

39. Vinod Kumar  

General 28.06.53 Dhanbad 01.03.82 I.C.D.S. Social Welfare  Department, Bihar

40. Anand Singh Choudhary

General 05.02.58 Dhanbad 08.03.82 I.C.D.S. Social Welfare  Department, Bihar

41. Satish Kumar Sinha

General 15.11.55 Dhanbad 13.04.82 I.C.D.S. Social Welfare  Department, Bihar

42. Ajijur Rahman

General 02.06.50 Dumka 19.04.82 D.E.O. Office Munger

43. Nand Kishore Mishra

General  01.06.50 Dumka 20.04.82 Welfare Department

44. Vimla Devi General 05.06.55 Gaya 06.08.82 Collectariate Patna 45. Baliram

Singh General  13.10.55 Gopalganj 06.08.82 Recommended in

Gopalganj Collectariate

46. Radha Krisna Mishra

General 01.05.57 Gopalganj 06.08.82 Gopalganj Collectariate

16

2. In the  adjustment, compliance  of  Reservation  roster shall be mandatory. Retrenched employee shall be adjusted/appointed against roster point of same category of reservation to which they belong.

3. Their adjustment shall be deemed new appointment and on the basis of their service prior to retrenchment benefit of seniority shall not be permissible to them but their service prior to retrenchment shall be calculated for the purpose of pension.  

4. All employees were under the control of Dist. Public Education Officer/Public Education directorate. So Joining of all employees should be accepted at their new place only after receiving No Objection Certificate issued by Dist. Public Education Officer/Public Education Directorate. The employees who have made joining in any other department earlier as result of adjustment, such employees shall produce No Objection Certificate issued from concerned Office.  

5. After the appointment of aforesaid employees, copy of appointment letter send immediately to the under signatory, so that, information should be sent to the  Hon’ble  High Court.  

6. On finding any kind of discrepancy, inform immediately, so that, it may be resolved immediately.  

Sincerely Sd./­dated 16/03/07 [Dr. Madan Mohan Jha]

   Commissioner & Secretary Memo No.270, Patna Date: 16 March, 2007”

(emphasis supplied)

17

10. This appointment letter reiterated the position that the

appointment/adjustment of the respondents was to be a new

appointment and, on the basis of their service prior to

retrenchment, benefit of seniority would not be permissible to

them but it would be reckoned only for the purpose of

pension. The respondents acted upon the said conditions and

did not challenge the same. The writ petition, however, came

to be filed only in 2013, being CWJC No.22208 of 2013, for the

following reliefs:  

“i) To issue an appropriate  writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioners of the period 1.10.2001 to 3.7.2007 with statutory interest. ii) To any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

The respondents sought further relief by way of an

amendment, which reads thus:  

“1.(iii).  To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to give continuity of past services of the Petitioners taking into account  the period 2001­2007, for the purpose of  making payment of salary to the Petitioners of the said period.”

18

11. The sole basis to buttress the relief as claimed was that

in the case of  Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra Vs. State of Bihar

and Ors.2  similar reliefs had been granted and the

respondents were similarly placed. The writ petition filed by

the respondents was resisted by the appellants by  inter alia

placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of

State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Arun Kumar3. According to the

appellants, no relief could be granted to the respondents as

they were appointed as per the policy articulated in

communication dated 20th May, 2005 and including the terms

and conditions of  appointment  noted  in  the  communication

dated 16th March, 2007. Inasmuch as, the respondents acted

upon the terms and conditions of fresh appointment without

any demurrer. Further, the case of the respondents was not

similar to the factual matrix involved in the case of Smt. Ram

Laxmi Mishra (supra). In any case, no relief can be granted in

2 Decided on 29th August, 2005 in CWJC No.1712/2002 passed by the High Court of  Judicature at Patna.  3 Decided on March 2, 2016 in Civil Appeal No.2433 of 2016 and connected appeals.

19

the fact situation of the present case by invoking Article 14 or

16 of the Constitution of India.  

12. Even though the learned Single Judge of the High Court

noted the argument of the appellants that, in a similar case of

Arun Kumar (supra), this Court had refused to grant relief of

back­wages, but nevertheless proceeded to answer the matters

in issue by holding that the appellants could not point out the

factual difference between the case of  Smt. Ram Laxmi

Mishra  (supra) and that of the respondents. Further, the

decision in  Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra  (supra) had been

affirmed  right  up to this  Court  by  dismissal  of the  Special

Leave Petition being SLP (Civil) No.18429 of 2009 on 24th July,

2009. On that basis alone, the writ petition came to be

allowed.  Thus, the reliefs claimed  in the  writ  petition  were

granted to the respondents by directing the appellants to pay

salary for the period from 1st October, 2001 till 3rd July, 2007.

20

13. The appellants, therefore, carried the matter in appeal by

way of Letters Patent Appeal No.2307 of 2016 before the

Division Bench of the  High Court.  The Division Bench also

disposed  of the appeal vide impugned judgment and order

dated 15th January, 2018, which reads thus:  

 “Heard counsel for the State, the appellants, as well as the private respondents.

Since the learned single Judge allowed the writ application, gave a direction  for payment of  salary  for the period 01.10.2001 to 03.07.2007 in conformity with a similar decision passed in the case of Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra,  which order in turn even upheld  by the  Division Bench as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the interest of maintaining consistency in identical situation, the learned single  Judge has committed no error in allowing  the  writ application and granted direction for payment for the period indicated above.  

We do not find any infirmity in the order. The appeal is dismissed.”

14. The appellants  would contend that the sole basis on

which  the  High Court  granted  reliefs to the respondents is

tenuous. For, the factual matrix involved in the case of  Smt.

Ram Laxmi Mishra (supra), is inapplicable to the case of the

respondents and  moreso,  unlike in the case of  Smt.  Ram

Laxmi  Mishra  (supra), the respondents not only failed to

21

challenge the termination order passed against them

consequent to abolition of the scheme w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 but

also failed to challenge both, the policy of the State articulated

in communication dated 20th  May, 2005 and the terms and

conditions of the letter of appointment dated 16th March, 2007.

Having failed to do so, the respondents were not entitled to

any relief whatsoever. Besides, the cause of action first arose

in 2001, then in May 2005 and again, in March 2007, but the

writ petition seeking relief of back­wages for the stated period

came to be filed by the respondents, without challenging the

termination order or the policy, for the first time in the year

2013. In other words, the writ petition filed by the respondents

also suffered from laches. It is then contended that in the case

of Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra (supra), the High Court directed

reinstatement and, as a consequential relief, ordered payment

of back­wages, after setting aside the termination order. In the

present  case, there is  no  challenge  against the termination

order or the terms and conditions specified in the appointment

letter dated 16th March, 2007, being fresh appointment of the

22

respondents. If it is not a case of reinstatement, the question

of granting back­wages for the stated period would not arise.

Moreover, since the respondents had not worked during the

relevant period at all, the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ would

inevitably come into play.  

15. The respondents, on the other hand, would contend that

the High Court, while granting relief to the respondents, has

placed reliance on  the  dictum  in  the judgment  rendered  in

Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra  (supra).  That  judgment has been

upheld by this Court  by dismissal  of  Special  Leave Petition

(Civil) No.18429 of 2009 on 24th July, 2009. Further, the High

Court while deciding the case of  Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra

(supra) had adverted to the decision of the same High Court in

the case of  Binod Kumar Verma4, which decision has also

been affirmed by this  Court by dismissal of Special Leave

Petition (Civil) No.11560 of 2005 on 16th  December, 2005.

Reliance  has also  been placed on  the  decision of the  same

4 Decided on 14th February, 2005 in CWJC No.15365 of 2001 passed by the High  Court of Judicature at Patna.

23

High Court in Krishnandan Singh5 and also on the decisions

rendered in Amar Nath Prasad Karn6, Yogi Kamti & Sunil

Kumar7 and Asgar Ali8. The decision in Asgar Ali has been

affirmed by this Court by dismissal of Special Leave Petition

(C) CC Nos.10361­10364 of 2014 on 18th July, 2014.  Further,

the decision of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA

No.359/2009 dated 10th October, 2009 came to be affirmed by

dismissal of SLP (C) No.1377 of 2011 on 2nd August, 2013. As

regards the decision of this Court in  State of Bihar & Ors.

Vs. Arun Kumar (supra), and connected cases, it is submitted

that the same is distinguishable. According to the

respondents, the appointment of Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra  and

other petitioners who succeeded before the High Court was on

the same terms and conditions consequent to the policy dated

20th May, 2005. The respondents submitted that no fault could

5 Decided on 23rd May, 2003 in CWJC No.12469 of 2002 passed by the High Court of  Judicature at Patna.  6 Decided on 10th July, 2017 in CWJC No.18490 of 2008 passed by the High Court of  Judicature at Patna. 7 Decided on 11th July, 2017 in CWJC No.18960 of 2008 and 18993 of 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna. 8 Decided on 4th January, 2010 in WPS No.729 of 2004 by the High Court of  Jharkhand.

24

be  found with the  impugned decision of the High Court  for

having followed the decision in  Smt.  Ram Laxmi  Mishra

(supra), which has been upheld by this Court by dismissal of

the concerned Special Leave Petition. It  is, therefore, prayed

that the appeal be dismissed, being devoid of merits.  

16. We have heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel

appearing for the appellants and Mr. Navaniti Prasad Singh,

learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.  

17. The principal issue that arises for consideration is

whether the reliefs as prayed for can be granted to the

respondents, who not only failed to challenge the termination

w.e.f.  1st  April,  2001 pursuant to  the  policy  decision of the

State Government at the relevant time but also failed to

challenge the latest policy decision of the State Government

noted in communication dated 20th  May, 2005, regarding

adjustment of the terminated employees on terms and

conditions stipulated thereunder and including the terms and

conditions specified in the appointment letter dated 16th

25

March, 2007. Neither the single Judge nor the Division Bench

of the High Court has dilated on this aspect at all. The learned

Single Judge mechanically followed the decision in Smt. Ram

Laxmi Mishra (supra). What has been completely glossed over

by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench in

the present case is that the writ petition filed in  Smt. Ram

Laxmi Mishra  (supra),  was to challenge the order of

termination dated 1st April, 2001, in which the said petitioner

succeeded in establishing that her initial appointment was in

the Adult Education Scheme and not in the Non­Formal

Education Scheme. What weighed with the High Court in that

case was that the closure of the Non­Formal Education

Scheme in which the concerned petitioner was working at the

relevant time,  would  not  affect  her  service  condition  in  the

cadre of Adult Education Scheme. Notably, in  Smt. Ram

Laxmi Mishra  (supra), the petitioner succeeded in the

challenge to her termination order and it came to be set aside

with consequential reliefs of reinstatement and monetary

benefits, which included back­wages for the relevant period.

26

18. In the present case, however, the respondents have

neither challenged the termination order after closure of the

Non­Formal Education Scheme w.e.f. 1st  April,  2001 nor the

policy dated 20th  May, 2005 under which they have been

appointed or the appointment letter dated 16th March, 2007.

Even the appointment letter dated 16th  March, 2007

unambiguously predicates that the appointment was a fresh

appointment and the past services would be reckoned only for

the purpose of grant of pension and nothing more.

Indisputably, the respondents acted upon such terms and

conditions of appointment without any demurrer. They chose

to file the subject writ petition only in the year 2013, when the

cause of action first arose on 1st April, 2001, then on 20th May,

2005 and once again, on 16th  March, 2007. Unless the

respondents are to be reinstated in their previous post (held

prior to 1st April, 2001), the question of awarding back­wages

would not arise at all. The relief of back­wages is and can be

linked only to the order of reinstatement. It cannot be awarded

27

in  isolation or, for that matter,  during the period when the

respondents were not in employment at all.  

19. A fortiori, we have no hesitation in taking the view that

the writ petition filed by the respondents for the stated reliefs

is devoid of merits for more than one reason. First, it suffers

from laches since it came to be filed only in the year 2013.

Second, there is no challenge to the termination w.e.f. 1st April,

2001 and including the policy dated 20th May, 2005, or to the

terms and conditions of appointment letter dated 16th March,

2007. No order of reinstatement could be passed in favour of

the respondents  and  sans  such  an  order, the respondents

cannot  be  bestowed  with  back­wages for the  period  during

which they were not in the employment of the appellants and

also because they did not work during that period. Third, the

scheme in respect of which the respondents were employed on

temporary basis was closed w.e.f. 1st April, 2001. No order of

reinstatement could be made much less of back­wages for the

period subsequent thereto  and until the  engagement  of the

respondents on 16th March, 2007 in a new post. If the scheme

28

in which they were employed has been abolished, by no

stretch of imagination can the court direct payment of back­

wages  for  the  period after  abolition of the scheme w.e.f.  1st

April, 2001. Fourth, the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ would

disentitle the respondents from the relief of back­wages. Fifth,

the decision in  Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra  (supra), is

distinguishable on facts and, in any case, a relief  wrongly

granted to the petitioner therein cannot be the basis to grant

similar relief to the respondents herein, which is not in

conformity with the extant regulations or policy, the dismissal

of Special Leave Petition of the State by this Court in that case

notwithstanding. Lastly, the principle underlying the decision

of this Court in  State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Arun Kumar

(supra), would apply  proprio vigore  to the case of the

respondents.  

20. Counsel  for the respondents was at pains to point out

that in  all  other  cases  of  similarly  placed persons, relief  of

back­wages for the relevant period has been granted by the

29

High Court, which has been upheld right up to this Court by

dismissal of Special Leave Petition(s) filed by the State

Government and for that reason, unequal treatment ought not

to be meted out to similarly placed persons. To buttress this

submission, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court

in  Ashwani Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and

Others,9  in  particular, the dictum  in paragraph 18  thereof.

The said paragraph reads thus:  

“18. Now is the time for us to take stock of the situation in the light of our answers to the aforesaid three points. As a logical corollary to these answers the appeals are liable to be dismissed as the decision of the High Court is found to be well sustained. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants to sustain services of these appellants on humanitarian grounds cannot be countenanced. When 6000 appointees  are  found  to  have been  illegally loaded on the State Exchequer  by Dr Mallick and when there were only 2250 sanctioned posts, in the absence of  clear data as to who were the senior most and which were the sanctioned posts available at the relevant time against which they could be fitted, it would be impossible to undertake even a jettisoning operation to offload the removable load of excess employees amounting to 3750 by resorting  to any  judicial surgery. Once the source of their recruitment is found to be tainted all of them have to go by the board. Nor can we say that benefit can be made available only to 1363 appellants  before  us  as the  other employees similarly circumscribed and who might not have approached the High Court or this Court earlier and who may be waiting in the wings would also be entitled to claim similar relief

9 1997 (2) SCC 1

30

against the State which has to give equal treatment to all of them otherwise it would be held guilty of discriminatory treatment which could not be countenanced under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Everything, therefore, must start on a clean slate. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the doctrine of tempering justice with mercy also cannot be pressed  in service on the peculiar facts  of these cases as mercy also has to be based on justice. The decision of this Court in the case of H.C. Puttaswamy10 also can be of no assistance to the appellants on the facts of the present cases as in that case the Chief Justice of the High Court  had full financial  powers to create any  number of vacancies on the establishment of the High Court as required and to  fill them up. There was no ceiling on his such powers.  Therefore,  the initial  entry of the appointees could not be said to be unauthorised or vitiated or tainted. The  fault that  was  found was  the  manner in  which  after recruitment  they were passed on to the establishments of subordinate courts. That exercise remained vitiated. But as the original entries in High Court service were not unauthorised these candidates/employees were permitted to be regularised. Such is not the present case. The initial entry of the employees is itself  unauthorised  being  not against sanctioned vacancies nor was Dr Mallick entrusted with the power of creating vacancies or posts for the schemes under the Tuberculosis Eradication Programme. Consequently the termination of the services of all these appellants cannot be found fault with. Nor any relief as claimed by them of reinstatement with continued service can be made available to them.”

(emphasis supplied)

21. For  the reasons already recorded, the argument under

consideration does not commend to us. As mentioned earlier,

the factual position stated in the decisions in which relief has

10  1991 Supp. (2) SCC 421

31

been given to the petitioners in the concerned  petitions is

distinguishable. More importantly, in those petitions, order of

termination was the subject matter of the challenge and,

having set aside the impugned termination, the court granted

consequential relief  of  reinstatement with back­wages to the

concerned petitioner(s). The respondents herein, however, for

reasons best known to them, did not challenge the order of

termination which event  had occurred w.e.f.  1st  April,  2001

consequent to abolition of the scheme in  which they  were

employed. Taking an overall view of the matter, therefore, the

respondents are not entitled to the reliefs as claimed, having

acted upon the terms and conditions upon which they came to

be engaged vide appointment letter dated 16th March, 2007.

22. Accordingly, this appeal  must succeed. The impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court on 15th

January, 2018 in LPA No.2307 of 2016 is quashed and set

aside. The writ petition filed by the respondents, being Civil

32

Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22208 of 2013, stands dismissed.

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

 .....……………………………...J.           (A.M. Khanwilkar)

…..…………………………..….J.      (L. Nageswara Rao)  

New Delhi; October 29, 2018.