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