Supreme Court of India
JAI NARAIN VYAS UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR AND ANR. versus MUKESH SHARMA ETC. ETC. on 28 March 2022
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
AJAI NARAIN VYAS UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR AND ANR.
v.
MUKESH SHARMA ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2096-2198 of 2022)
B
MARCH 28, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Regularization – Consequential benefits –CRespondents-writ petitioners, were working on different posts inappellant-University for 15 to 30 years, on contractual / daily wagebasis – They prayed for regularizing their services on ground ofparity with similarly situated employees who were confirmed andwere also granted regular pay scale – Writ petitions – High CourtDdirected the University to regularize the services of respondentswith all consequential benefits – Held: No reason to interfere withthe judgment passed by High Court granting regularization –However, on facts, to meet the ends of justice, the actualconsequential benefits accruing from the regularization restrictedEto three years prior to filing of the writ petitions.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: These writ petitions were filed in the year 2018/2019. In order to see that there is no heavy financial burden uponFthe University and at the same time to strike a balance andconsidering the fact that the respective original writ petitionershave worked for more than 15 to 30 years, if it is ordered that theactual consequential benefits on regularization of their servicesare restricted to three years prior to filing of the writ petitions,Gwhile they are granted the benefit of regularization notionally andwith continuity of the service from the date on which the othersimilarly situated employees were regularized, it will meet theends of justice. [Para 4][845-E-G]
H
JAI NARAIN VYAS UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR AND ANR. v. MUKESHSHARMA ETC. ETC.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2096-2198 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.08.2021 and 17.08.2021of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in DB CivilSpecial Appeal Writ No. 347 of 2019, D.B.Spl. Appl. Writ Nos. 1759,1791, 1853, 1857, 1864, 1865, 1870, 1871, 1874, 1891, 1898 and 1911 of2018, and D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ Nos. 127, 133, 135, 138, 163, 169, 170,171, 221, 222, 241, 243, 244, 245, 247, 251, 278, 304, 305, 306, 307, 310,320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 342, 344, 350, 354,356, 360, 361, 362, 363, 375, 382, 387, 395, 404, 411, 419, 442, 443, 449,452, 454, 455, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 523, 549, 552, 553, 564, 567, 572,577, 605, 761, 762, 763, 764, 765, 766, 767, 854, 856, 888, 889, 890, 891,892, 934, 941, 955, 956, 957 of 2019 and D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 333 of2020 and D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 326 of 2019.
Dr Manish Singhvi, Sr Adv., Arpit Parkash, Prashant Kumar, Advs.for the Appellants.
Dr. Vineet Kothari, Dr. Nikhil Dungawat, Nihar Jain, RajeshKumar, Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Manvendra Singh, Dashrath Singh,Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
83
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpurin D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 347 of 2019 and other allied writ appeals bywhich the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appealsand has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned SingleJudge passed in respective writ petitions by which the learned SingleJudge allowed the said writ petitions and directed the appellant Universityto regularize their services with all consequential benefits, the employerUniversity has preferred the present appeals.
2. The respective original writ petitioners were appointed ondifferent posts namely viz. Chowkidar/Peon, Book Attendant, LDC,Library Assistant, Junior Accountant, Accountant, Helper, Staff Nurse,Sweeper, Rakshak, Lab Bearer, Lab Attendant, Book Lifter, SecurityGuard, Matron, Driver/Peon, LDC cum Computer Operator of theappellant- Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred A
BC
D
E
F
G
H
Ato as the “J.N.V. University’) on different dates through the placementagency. Since all of them had already put in almost 15-30 years of service,they requested for regularizing their services in the University but theirservices were not regularized.
2.1 In the year 1999, the meetings of the Sub-CommitteeBconstituted by the Vice Chancellor of the University were held on22.03.1999 and 26.03.1999 for considering regularization of the servicesof six persons who were rendering their services in a similar fashion likethe respondents herein - petitioners in the University on contractual/daily wage basis. The said Sub-Committee recommended forregularization of their services. The said recommendation was confirmedCin a Meeting of the Syndicate dated 28.03.1999. Once again, therespondents-petitioners prayed for regularizing their services on theground of parity in view of the decision taken by the Syndicate of theUniversity on 28.03.1999 whereby six similarly situated employees wereconfirmed and were also granted regular pay scale. However, the sameDwas not agreed to by the University.
2.2 It is to be noted that the University Administration vide itsNotification dated 27.10.2017 sought information in a prescribed proformafrom different departments regarding persons rendering the services oncontract basis, probably with a view to regularize their services. However,Etheir services were not regularized and therefore separate writ appealswere filed before the High Court and the same were allowed by differentBenches of the High Court directing the University to regularize theservices of the respondents herein – original writ petitioners with allconsequential benefits.F2.3 The judgments and orders passed by different Benches werethe subject matter before the Division Bench. By the impugned commonjudgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissedthe said appeals. While dismissing the appeals, the Division Bench hasalso noted that the writ petitions preferred by some of the employeeswere allowed by the learned Single Judge Benches and the appealsGpreferred by the Universities were also dismissed by the Division benchand in some of the cases, even the special leave petitions filed by theUniversity before this Court were also dismissed.
2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order passed by the High Court, the University has preferredHthe present appeals.
JAI NARAIN VYAS UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR AND ANR. v. MUKESHSHARMA ETC. ETC. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
3. By order dated 07.02.2022, this Court issued a limited notice torestrict the benefits accruing from the regularization to three years priorto filing of the writ appeals. The order dated 07.02.2022 reads as under:- “We have heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate,appearing for the petitioner-University at length.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has directedto regularize the services of the respondents with all consequentialbenefits. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reasonto interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt granting regularization, more particularly, the concerned employeeshave been continued in service, may be on contractual basis, for morethan 15-30 years of service. The question of law, if any, is kept open.
Now, so far as the giving consequential benefits on regularization,we issue limited notice to the respondents, returnable on 14.03.2022 andto show cause why the benefit accruing from the regularization may notbe restricted to the three years prior to filing of the writ petitions.
Dasti, in addition, is permitted.”
4. We have heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the appellant University and Dr. Vineet Kothariand Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe respective respondents – original writ petitioners. These writ petitionswere filed in the year 2018/2019. In order to see that there is no heavyfinancial burden upon the University and at the same time to strike abalance and considering the fact that the respective original writpetitioners have worked for more than 15 to 30 years, if it is ordered thatthe actual consequential benefits on regularization of their services arerestricted to three years prior to filing of the writ petitions, while theyare granted the benefit of regularization notionally and with continuity ofthe service from the date on which the other similarly situated employeeswere regularized, it will meet the ends of justice.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theimpugned common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench ofthe High Court and those of the learned Single Judge are hereby modifiedand it is ordered that the original writ petitioners shall be entitled to theactual consequential benefits on regularization for the period prior tothree years of filing of the writ petitions only. However, they shall be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aentitled to continuity in service and benefits notionally on regularization,from the date on which the similarly situated employees were regularized.
All these appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be noorder as to costs.
B
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeals partly allowed.
C
D
E
F
G
H