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