MALATHI DAS (RETD.) NOW P.B. MAHISHY & ORS.versusSURESH & ORS

                     [2014] 3 S.C.R. 637


   MALATHI DAS (RETD.) NOW P.B. MAHISHY & ORS.                    A
                              v.
                      SURESH & ORS
              (Civil Appeal No. 3338 of 2014)

                      MARCH 7, 2014
                                                                  B
    [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

    SERVICE LAW:

     Regularization - Similarly situated daily rated employees    c
like respondents, regularaised on the basis of directions of
High Court, which directions attained finality on dismissal of
SLP by Supreme Court - Respondents not regularized ori the
ground that meanwhile as per judgment in Uma Devi they
were not entitled to regularization - Direction by High Court     0
in contempt petition to regularise respondents, failing which
matter to be posted for framing of charge - Held: Similarly
placed employees having been regularized, and in the case
of some of them such regularization being after the decision
in Umadevi, stand taken by appellants in refusing                 E
regularization to respondents cannot be countenanced -
However, as the stand of appellants stemmed from their
perception and understanding of decision in Umadevi, they
are not held liable for contempt but, it is made clear that
appellants and all other competent authorities of State will be   F
obliged and duty bound to regularize the services of
respondents forthwith - Contempt of Court.

    ·The instant appeal arose out of the contempt petition
filed by 74 respondents before the High Court for non-
compliance of the judgment and order dated 15.12.1999             G
passed by the High Court following an earlier order dated
10.9.1999 passed in similar writ petitions, directing
regularization of services of 445 daily rated employees,
including the respondents. Following the dismissal of the
                           637                                    H
    638      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A SLPs of the State by the Supreme Court, 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 subsequent writ petitions. Some
  of the employees were regularized under the scheme.
B Services of some others were regularized after filing of
  contempt proceedings. During the pendency of the
  contempt petition, the claim of regularization of
  respondents was rejected on the ground that the
  claimants did not fulfill the conditions for regularization.
c as laid down by Supreme Court in Umadevi1• The High
  Court, by orders dated 26.3.2007, held the appellants
  prima facie guilty of commission of contempt and granted
  them two weeks time to comply with the relevant order,
  failing which the matter was directed to be posted for
0 framing of charge.
          Disposing of the appeal, the Court

         HELD: 1.1 In a situation where a Scheme had been
    framed on 29.12.2005 to give effect to the order dated
E   15.12.1999 passed by the High Court in the writ petitions
    filed by the respondents and many of the similarly
    situated persons have been regularized, the action of the
    appellants in not granting regularization to the
    respondents cannot appear to be sound or justified. The
F   fact that the regularization of 55 employees, similarly
    situated to the respondents, was made on 18.04.2006 i.e.
    after the decision of this Court in Umadevi leaves no
    doubt or ambiguity in the matter. Besides, it is wholly
    unnecessary to consider as to whether the cases of
G   persons who were awaiting regularization on the date of
    the decision in Umadevi are required to be dealt with in
    accordance with the conditions stipulated in its para 53
    inasmuch as the claims of the respondent employees can
    well be decided on principles of parity. [para 8) [643-F-H;
H   644-8-C]
 MALATHI DAS (RETD.) NOW P.B. MAHISHY & ORS. 639
              v. SURESH & ORS.
     Secretary, State of Kamataka and Others vs. Umadevi A
(3) and Others 2006 (3) SCR 953 = (2006) 4 SCC 1 • referred
to.

     1.2 Similarly placed employees having been
 regularized by the State and in case of some of them
                                                           8
 such regularization being after the decision in Umadevi,
 this Court is 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 stemmed from their perception and
 understanding of the decision in Umadevi, they are not C
·held liable for contempt but, it is made clear that the
 appellants and all the other competent authorities of the
 State will be obliged and duty bound to regularize the
 services of the respondents (74 in number) forthwith.
 [para 8] (644-C-E]                                        D

                     Case Law Reference:
      2006 (3) SCR 953        referred to          para 4

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.          E
3338. of 2014.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 26.03.2007 of the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in CCC No. 669 of 2006.

    K.N. Bhat, V.N. Raghupathy, Anantanarayana M.G. for the    F
Appellants.

    Guru Krishna Kuniar, V. Lakshmi Naryana, Nishanth Patil,
Sushil Balwada, Vikram Balaji, Sharan Thakur, Ramesh Babu
M.R. for the Respondents.                                      G

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. Leave granted.

      2. This appeal is against the order dated 26.03.2007 H
    640     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 3 S.C.R.

A 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 which
B 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
C 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
D instituted W.P. Nos. 39117-17611999 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·
E 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 by this Court on 22.07.2005. Two
F 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
G 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.
H
 MALATHI DAS (RETD.) NOW P.B. MAHISHY & ORS. 641
     v. SURESH & ORS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
 Nos. 39117-176/1999). 161 persons who had filed contempt A
 proceedingsror non-compliance of the order dated 15.12.1999
 were regularized on 29.12.2005. Thereafter, on 8.3.2006, 64
 of.her persons, who were similarly placed to the aforesaid 161
 persons as we!Yas to the present 74 respondents, were also
 regularized. Such regularization was made without the B
 concerned persons having to initiate any contempt proceeding.
 The cases of the other petitioners in W.P. Nos.39117-76/1999
 were, however, not considered.

       4. Consequently, 129 employees, including the 74                C
  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            D
" (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                E
  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 regularization of respondents was     F
  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 Kamataka and Others
  vs. Umadevi (3) and Others'. Some of the said orders/
  endorsements were illustratively brought on record which             G
  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.
  1.   c2006) 4   sec 1.                                               H
    642      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (20141 3 S.C.R.


A On a detailed consideration of the facts of the case, pa:iicularly,
  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
B (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.

        5. We have heard Shri K.N. Bhat, learned senior counsel
C 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
D 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
E 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
F conditions the impugned refusals to regularize the 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
G 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
H had attained finality prior to the decision of this Court in
MALATHI DAS (RETD ) NOW P.8. MAHISHY & ORS. 643
    v. SURESH B~ ORS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
Umadev1 \Supra\ the regularization of the respondents cannot A
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 pet1t1oners 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 B
18 04 2006 ie. after 10 04.2006 (the date of decision in
Umadevi (suora)). 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       c
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.                                                    D
     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 E
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 the pendency of the F
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 G
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 H
    644       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2014] 3 S.C R

A dispute though Shri Bhat, learned senior counsel for the
  appellants, has trie~ 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
B 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 conditions
  stipulated in para 53 of Umadevt (supra) inasmuch as the
c 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
0 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
E 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
F
    R.P.                                      Appeal disposed of.