Supreme Court of India
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2015 INSC 1018
- Decided
- 9 September 2015
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- DIPAK MISRA
Holding
The earlier Supreme Court judgment affirming the right of retrenched employees to be absorbed under the 1991 Rules is binding, the High Court erred in revisiting its ratio, and the appellants must be absorbed with seniority and paid 40% of back wages.
Summary
The Uttar Pradesh State Cement Corporation was wound up in 1999, leaving a group of employees retrenched under the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees Rules, 1991. Earlier Supreme Court judgments had affirmed that such employees were entitled to be absorbed in government service despite the later rescission of the 1991 Rules by the 2003 Rules. The appellants, other retrenched employees, sought the same benefit, but the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court attempted to re‑examine the ratio of the earlier Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong to revisit a matter already settled, that the earlier judgment is binding, and that the appellants must be absorbed according to seniority with applicable increments. Additionally, the Court ordered payment of 40% of back wages to each appellant. The appeals were allowed.
Issues considered
- The High Court's authority to re‑examine the ratio of the earlier Supreme Court judgment on absorption of retrenched employees.
- Whether the rescission of the 1991 absorption rules by the 2003 Rules extinguishes the right of retrenched employees to be absorbed.
- Whether back wages are payable to the retrenched employees and, if so, the quantum of such payment.
Legislation cited
Subjects
absorptionretrenched employeesservice lawprecedentjudicial disciplineback wagesseniorityUttar Pradesh Absorption RulesSupreme Courtratio decidendi
Judgment
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 566
A SUNIL KUMAR VERMA AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9165-9172 of 2010 etc.)
B SEPTEMBER 09, 2015
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]
Service Law-Absorption - Of retrenched employees-
Under Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees
C of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service
Rules, 1991 - Writ petition by some of the employees
seeking absorption under the 1991 Rules allowed and that
order confirmed upto Supreme Court - In the pending writ
D petitions which was filed by the present appellants (other
employees of the respondent-Corporation), benefits similar
to that granted in other writ petition, sought- Single Judge of
High Court allowed the petition - Division Bench of High
Court questioning the ratio of the judgment passed by the
E Single Judge of the High Court passed in the other writ
petition, set aside the order in the present case- On appeal,
held: When the controversy had been put to rest by this court
in the earlier judgment, the Division Bench of High Court
was not right in entering into the analysis of the ratio of the
F earlierjudgment and discussion on binding precedent- This
kind of unnecessary enthusiastic quest should be avoided
as it is contrary to the principles o( judicial discipline - This
kind of situation also procrastinates the litigations and is
extremely expensive and time-consuming - Appellants-
G employees are entitled to the benefit of absorption - They
shall be absorbed as per their seniority - In the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is directed that they are paid
40% of the back wages - Uttar Pradesh Absorption of
Retrenched Employees of Government or Public
H 566
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. 567
Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991 - A
Constitution of India, 1950- Art. 141 - Precedent - Judicial
Discipline.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
B
HELD: 1. It was absolutely inappropriate on the part
of the High Court to go in search of ratio of the judgment
rendered by the Single Judge on the earlier occasion,
when the controversy had really been put to rest by this
court. The Division Bench should not have entered the c
arena which was absolutely unwarranted. The decision
rendered by this Court inter se parties was required to
be followed in the same fact situation. When the factual
matrix was absolutely luminescent and did not require
any kind of surgical dissection, there was no necessity o
to take a different view. This kind of situation
procrastinate the litigations and the litigants and is
extremely expensive and time consuming. This kind of
unnecessary enthusiastic quest should be avoided. It
is because it is contrary to the principles of judicial E
discipline. [Para 16] [580-H; 581-A-C,F]
Koppisetty Venkat Ratnam v. Pamarti Venkayamma
2009 (3) SCR 574: 2009 (4) SCC 244; Sundarjas Kanya/al
Bhatija v. Collector 1989 (3) SCR 405: 1989 (3) SCC 396; F
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others 2008 (15) SCR
331: 2008 (10) sec 1 - relied on.
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. &
Others 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 517: 2003 (2) SCC 111; Delhi G
Administration (Now N. C. T of Delhi) v. Manohar Lal 2002
(2) Suppl. SCR 1: 2002 (7) SCC 222 - referred t<?.
2. There is no reason that the appellants should not
reap the benefits of absorption and, accordingly, it is 1-1
directed that they shall be absorbed by the State
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.
A Government as per their seniority and be given the
benefit of increments. They will be entitled to their
seniority as per the prevalent rules. If anyone has been
retired from service, he shall get the retiral benefits
inclusive of pension. [Para 18] [582-C,D]
B
3. As regards payment of back wages, regard being
had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the cause
of justice would be best ·subserved if each of the
appellant is paid 40% of the back wages, and it is so
C directed. [Para 19] [582-F-G]
Case Law Reference
2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 517 referred to. Para 9
D 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 1 referred to. Para 9
2009 (3) SCR 574 relied on. Para 16
1989 (3) SCR 405 relied on. Para 17
E 2008 (15) SCR 331 relied on. Para 17
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
9165-9172 of2010
.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2010 of the
F High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Speciar Appeal
(defective) Nos. 1034, 1158, 1068 and 1055 of2009 and 114,
602, 603 and 195 of 2010.
WITH
G Civil Appeal Nos. 10567, 10177-10179 and 9142-9144
of2010.
Civil Appeal Nos. 991, 2293, 3212, 7117, 7119, 7838,
7109,8335,8345,8672,8687,9731, 10450, 10546, 10549,
H 10550 and 10688 of 2011.
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. 569
Civil Appeal Nos. 201, 208, 209, 2151, 2152, 2460, 6152, A
6153,6154,6155,6156,6157,6175,6720,6897,7864,7893,
7894, 7895,7896,7897,8517,8682,8764,6398-6403and
7861-7863 of2012.
Civil Appeal Nos. 295, 296, 304, 305, 306, 444, 620, B
664, 1507, 1508, 5343, 6716, 5344 and 311-313 of2013
Civil Appeal Nos. 7867 and 7868 of2015.
Amrendra Saran, Manoj Prasad, Santosh KumarTripathi,
Rohit Singh, Sada Shiv Gupta, Ashutosh Dubey, K. C. C
Vishwakarma, Sarthak Choudhary, D. P. Singh Yadav, Umesh
Kumar, Sullabh Tiwari, Balraj Dewan, Dr. Vinod K. Tewari,
Pramod Tiwari, Pankaj Kumar Singh, K. L. Janjani, Mohan
Pandey, Yatish Mohan, Pooja, Anand Bali, E. C. Vidya Sagar, D
T. Anamika, Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, Sun ii Kumar Jain, Pawan
Shree Agrawal, Kaushik Chaudhary, Akarsh Garg, Rajesh
Sharma, Shalu Sharma, Ashok Kumar Gupta II, Ashok K.
Mahajan, Dileep Tandon, R. B. Phookan, Neha T. Phookan,
Shailesh Madiyal, Manoj Prasad, Rakesh U. Upadhyay, P. S. E
Deoghar for the Appellants.
Reena Singh, AAG, Sakshi Mebley, Alka Sinha, D. K.
Goswami, Anuvrat Sharma, Ravindra Kumar, Santosh Kumar
Tripathi, Umesh Kumar, Satish Kumar, T. Anamika, Rakesh F
Uttamchandra Upadhyay for the Respondents.
Appellant-in-person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
DIPAK MISRA, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P.(C) N0.1833
of2013 and S.L.P.(C) N0.19001 of2013.
2. The U.P. State Cement Corporation Limited (for short,
'the Corporation') was wound up on 81h December, 1999. H
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.
A There is no dispute about the fact that the said Corporation is
an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the
Constitution of India. It is the admitted position that in the State
of U.P. existed a set of rules, namely, the Uttar Pradesh
Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public
B Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991 (for short,
'the 1991 Rules'). After the Corporation was wound up,
Shailendra Kumar Pandey and some others, who were the
employees of the Corporation, filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ
Petition No.36644 of 2003, seeking absorption under the
C aforesaid Rules.
3. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition
referred to Rule 3(i) of the Rules that deals with the rights of
the retrenched employees. He referred to the dictionary clause
D engrafted in Rule 2(c), which reads as follows:
"2(c} Retrenched employees means a person who was
appointed on the post under the Government or a public
corporation on or before Oct., 1, 1986 in accordance with
E the procedure laid down for recruitment to the post and
was continuously working in any post under the
Government or such Corporation up to the date of his
retrenchment. Due to reduction in, or winding up of, any
establishment of the Government or the Corporation, ·as
F . the case may be and in respect of whom a certificate of
being a retrenched employee has been issued by this
appointing authority."
After reproducing the said provision, the Writ Court
G referred to th~ order passed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition
No.17195 of 1998, and reproduced the relevant paragraphs
from the decision rendered therein and, thereafter, took note
of the fact that the said order had been affirmed in Special
Appeal No.540 of 1999, and further stood confirmed by this
H . Court, for the appeal preferred before this Court did not meet
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. 571
[DIPAKMISRA, J.]
with success. The learned Single Judge also referred to the A
order passed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 38534
of 2001 on 20 1h September, 2003, wherein· a direction was
issued to the respondent No.2 to take appropriate decision.
After the said direction was issued, the Principal Secretary
(Personnel), Government of U.P., rejected the claims of the B
petitioners therein on the foundation that the Personnel
Department did not have the authority to declare the employees
as retrenched employees and to take a decision for their
absorption. The learned Single Judge dealt with various
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and C
also cogitated upon the U. P. Absorption of Retrenched
Employees of the State Government/Public Sector
Corporation in Government Service (Recession) Rules, 2003
(hereinafter referred to as 'the 2003 Rules') and, eventually
0
came to hold passed that the Absorption Rules, 1991 were
rescinded on 81h April, 2003 and much prior to that the
employees had represented and the respondents were
required to consider their rights for absorption within two
months and regard being had to the rule position, it could safely E
be held that the rights of the employees had crystallized much
before the Rules were rescinded. After so holding, the learned
Single Judge proceeded to state thus:-
'The respondents cannot take the benefit of the delay F
caused by them in considering petitioners application.
The two months period granted by this Court on
20.09.2002 expired on 20.11.2002. The delay made by
the Secretary (Karmik)Anubhag-2, Government of U.P. in
deciding the matter, cannot be a ground to refuse the due G
consideration, required to be made by this Court before
the rescission of the Rules. The Rescission of Rules will,
therefore, not come in the way of petitioners in claiming
the absorption.
H
The writ petition, as such, allowed. The impugned order
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.
A dated 30.04.2003 passed by the Special Secretary
(Karmik) Anubhag-3, Govt. of U .P., Lucknow (Annexure-
10 to the writ petition) is quashed. The respondents are
directed to absorb the petitioners in any vacancy on
Group-C post outside the purview of Public Service
B Commission within a period of two months from the date
of production of a certified copy of this order."
4. The aforesaid order came to be assailed before a
Special Bench in Special Appeal No.618 of2004. The Division
C Bench referred to its order dated 141h October, 2004, passed
in State of U.P. through its Secretary and Another vs.
Mukund Lal Singh 1 which had faced dismissal and
accordingly passed the following order:
o "In view of the averments made in Ground Nos.12 and 13
of the Special Appeal, the appeal is bound to be dismissed
as the decision of this Court, in Writ Petition No.17195 of
1998 was challenged not only before the Division Bench
in Special Appeal but was also before the Apex Court and
E the judgment remained intact.
In view of the above, considering the averments made in
the affidavit filed in support of the application under section
5 of the Limitation Act condonation of delay, we condone
F the delay in filing the appeal but dismiss the Special
Appeal on merit.
Mst. Kirtika Singh appears for the respondent.
However, the judgment and the order of the learned Single
G Judge shall be given effect to strictly in accordance with
Rule 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched
Employees of Government or Public Corporations in
Government Service (Rescission) Rules, 2003."
H 'S.P.A. No.869 of 2004 decided on 14 10.2004
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. 573
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
5. The said order came to be assailed in Civil Appeal A
No.782 of 2006. This Court vide order dated 31•1 January,
2008, passed the following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
B
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned orders.
The civil appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
It is made clear that the directions in the order dated 14th C
October, 2004, passed in Special Appeal No.869 of2004
that the order of the learned Single Judge shall be given
effect to strictly in accordance with Rule 3(1) of the Uttar
Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of .
Government or Public Corporations in Government D
Service Rules, 1991, shall apply in all these appeals.
I.A. No. 7 is permitted to be withdrawn to take such remedy
as is available to the applicant under law. I.A. No.5 is
permitted to be withdrawn." E
It is apt to note here, thereafter, certain issues arose before
this Court in contempt petitions with regard to the grant of
salary component. We shall refer ~o the said facet at a later
stage. F
6. When the matter stood thus, and in all possibility, all the
affected employees of the Corporation felt relieved, inasmuch
as the controversy had travelled to this Court and was put to
rest. The writ petitions which were preferred in the year 2001 G
were still pending before the High Court and tile expectation
of the petitioners therein was that the similar benefits shall
enure to them, for the writ petitions instituted on later dates
had been disposed. As is demonstrable, the learned Single
Judge following the judgment of the Special Bench, as well as H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.
A of this Court, allowed the writ petition.
7. On appeals being preferred by the State of U.P., the
Division Bench by the impugned judgment, rather a longish
one, adverted to many an aspect and posed the core question
B which is as follows:-
"The question still remains as to what is the ratio of
Shailendra Kumar Pandey's case (supra), which was
decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide its
c judgment and order dated 5th January, 2004 and affirmed
in special appeal by Division Bench of this Court and in
civil appeal by the Apex Court."
8. The Division Bench after posing the question,
proceeded to state that:-
0
"As noticed above, the learned Single Judge in its
judgment dated 5th January, 2004, in Shailendra Kumar
Pandey's case (supra) noticed that the 1991 Rules were
rescinded on 8th April, 2003, but a view was taken that
E since the retrenched employees fell within the category of
the 1991 Rules and the respondents were required to
consider their rights for absorption within two months under
the order of this Court passed on 20th September, 2002,
the respondents cannot take the benefit of delay caused
F
by them in considering the claim of the writ petitioners. It
was also held that their rights crystallised much before
the rules were rescinded. The learned Single Judge further
held that two months period expired on 20th November,
G 2002 and the delay caused by Secretary (Karmik},
Government of U.P. cannot be a ground to refuse due
consideration required to be made by this Court before
rescission of the rules. The above observation of the
learned Single Judge makes it clear that basis of the
H direction by the Court was non compliance of the earlier
-· SUNIL KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. 575
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
directions dated 20 1h September, 2002 within the time A
allowed and that was the reason for direction to the State
Government to consider the case of absorption. The said
directions of the learned Single Judge dated 6th January,
2004, were issued on the special facts of that case.
B
As noted above, the special appeal filed against the
judgment and order dated 5th January, 2004 was
dismissed following earlier decision of the Division Bench
in Special Appeal No. 869 of 2004. The order passed by
the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.869 C
of 2004 has also been quoted above by which decision
the special appeal was dismissed with direction that the
judgment of learned Single Judge be given effect to strictly
in accordance with Rule 3 of the 1991 Rules. While
dismissing the special appeal on 14th October, 2004, the D
Division Bench had not adverted to the consequence of
the Rescission Rules, 2003. The Division Bench in the
aforesaid judgment having not considered or expressed
any opinion with regard to the Rescission Rules, 2003,
no such ratio can be read in the aforesaid judgment that E
despite Rescission Rules 2003 the right of retrenched
employees, who could not be absorbed till 8th April, 2003,
still subsists and can be enforced by a writ petition."
9. Thereafter, the Division Bench referred to the authority F
in Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana· Sugar Mill (P) Ltd.
and Others2 and Delhi Administration (Now NCT of Delhi)
vs. Manohar Laf which deal with binding nature of a judgment
and thereafter, it referre.d to the decision in Special Appeal
No.233 of 2007 decided on 15th March, 2007, wherein the G
.
1991 Rules and 2003 Rules were considered and opined thus: -
"A Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.233
of 2007 (Subhash Prasad vs. State of UP and Others,
---------
2
(2003) 2 sec 111 H
'(2002) 7 sec 222
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015) 9 S.C.R.
A decided on 15.3.2007) had considered the similar issues
pertaining to right under the 1991 Rules and the effect of
the Rescission Rules 2003. The appellant in the aforesaid
case had filed a writ petition for a direction for absorption
under the 1991 Rules. The writ petition was dismissed
B by the learned Single Judge against which special appeal
was filed. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said judgment the
Division Bench noted Rule 3(1) of the Rescission Rules
2003. The argument of the learned counsel for the State
that after the Rescission Rules 2003 came into force the
c right under the 1991 Rules came to an end was also
noticed. The Division Bench held that at the highest the
applicant has to be considered like any other employee
but the said right came to an end when the rules were
rescinded in 2003."
D
10. The Division Bench expressed the view that decision
in Subhash Prasad (supra) was squarely applicable and
governed the field. It also referred to the decision in W.P.
No.51252 of 2006 [Prabhu vs. State of U.P. and Others),
E wherein the learned Single Judge had opined that merely
because some incumbents had been offered appointment
under the cover of the orders passed by the Court, it will not
improve the case of the petitioners therein as two wrongs would
F not make a thing right. Endorsing the said view, the Division
Bench proceeded to :;tate that:-
" ....... We having found that the right of consideration for
absorption under the 1991 Rules having come to an end
after the Rescission Rules 2003, no mandamus can be
G issued for enforcing the said right. However, it is relevant
to note that under the Rescission Rules 2003 as well as
under the 2009 Act certain benefits have been provided
to the retrenched employees even after 81h April, 2003.
The retrenched employees, i.e writ petitioners are fully
H
entitled to take the benefit of the aforesaid Rule 3(ii) of
_, SUNIL KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. 577
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
the Rescission Rules 2003 and Section 3(2) of the 2009 A
Act.
The appeals filed by the retrenched employees
challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in Prabhu
Nath Prasad's case deserves to be and are hereby B
dismissed in view of the foregoing discussions. Thus all
the appeals of Group-I, Group-Ill and Group-IV are partly
allowed setting aside the directions issued by the learned
Single Judge for absorbing the writ petitioners. However,
it is directed that retrenched employees of U.P. Cement C
Corporation, Bhadohi Woollen Mills and U.P. State Sugar
Corporation shall be entitled for the benefits as
contemplated under Rule 3(ii) of the Rescission Rules
2003 <!nd saved under Section 3(2) of the 2009 Act on
Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts." D
11. We have heard Mr. Amarendra Sharan and Mr. Manoj
Prasad, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sun ii
Kumar Verma, the appellant in-person in Civil Appeal No.9165
of 2010 and Ms. Reena Singh, learned Additional Advocate E
General for the State of U. P.
12. We have already adumbrated the facts in extenso to
understand the nature of controversy. It is evident from the
narration of the factual score that Mukund Lal Singh, who had F
approached the High Court in 2004, did not stand on a better
footing than the present appellants herein. The learned Single
Judge had treated him as a retrenched employee on similar
facts. The Special Bench had declined to interfere and this
Court, while dismissing the civil appeals, as the order would G
clearly show, had directed to give effect to the order passed in
Special Appeal No.869 of 2004, strictly in accordance with
Rule 3(1) of the 1991 Rules and it was eloquently stated that
the Rule would apply to the batch of appeals. Needless to
emphasise, the writ petition preferred by the present appellants H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.
A should have been listed along with the writ petition preferred
by Mukund Lal Singh and Shaiendra Kumar Pandey, but,
unfortunately, it did not so happen.
13. Be it stated, there had already been interpretation of
B 2003 Rules by the learned Single Judge which has been
affirmed up to this Court. In such a situation, we really fail to
fathom how the Division Bench could have thought of entering
into the analysis of the ratio of the earlier judgment and
discussion on binding precedents. That apart, the Division
C Bench should have also kept itself alive to the direction issued
by this Court in the civil appeals.
14. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note
what followed thereafter. After the directions were issued by
o this Court, Contempt Petition No.255 of 2008 in Civil Appeal
No. 782 of 2006 and certain other contempt petitions were filed.
This Court issued directions from time to time as the employees
were not absorbed. Thereafter, they were absorbed and this
Court directed for payment of salary component and certain
E other consequential benefits from the date of retrenchment.
This Court referred to the order passed by the State
Government and reproduced the same. It is extracted
hereur1der:-
F "Hon'ble Governor has been pleased to accord its
sanction to extend following facilities/benefits to the
petitioners of Contempt Petition No.255/2008-Mukund Lal
Singh versus Atul Kumar Gupta, Secretary, Government
of Uttar Pradesh; Contempt Petition No.256/2008-
G Shailendra Kumar Pandey and others versus Kunwar
Fateh Bahadur Singh and others; and Contempt Petition
No.15/2009 (Civil Appeal No. 782/2006) - Mohd.
Shakiluddin and others versus Shri Atul Kumar Gupta and
others and other connected Civil Appeals pending before
H the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as those petitioners
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. 579
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
who are covered by the Judgment and ordar of the Hon'ble A
Supreme Court dated 31.1.2008 and in furtherance to
government order No.3504/77-1-2009/13(Cement)/2004
dated 3.12.2009.
1) All the petitioners of the aforesaid Contempt Petitions B
and all others who are covered by the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 31.1.2008, will be deemed
to have been absorbed in the government service with
effect from the date of their retrenchment by the Uttar
Pradesh State Cement Corporation Limited. C
2) If it is not possible to absorb Petitioners of the aforesaid
Contempt Petitions and all others who are covered by the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 31.1.2008,
on the posts on which they were working in the Uttar o
Pradesh Cement Corporation Limited on the date of their
retrenchment, then they be protected in the pay scale for
the post on which they are being absorbed, in such a
manner that their salaries are closest to the salaries which
they were withdrawn on the date of their retrenchments E
from the Corporation. It was further decided in the meeting
that if the last salary drawn by them was higher than the
salary being given to them after their absorption in the
government service, then such a different be considered
as personal pay and such personal pay be given to them F
from the date of their retrenchment. But before doing so,
an undertaking must be obtained from the concerned
personnel that he has not already received any other
benefits, salary, retrenchment compensation etc. from the
Official Liquidator, for the period after their retrenchment G
from parent department. If any personnel has already
availed any benefit from the official liquidator for the period
after his retrenchment, then same will be adjusted from
the arrears of the said personnel. Affidavit of undertaking H
given by the personnel should also be got verified from
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015) 9 S.C.R.
A the official liquidator.
3) Besides above, these personnel will also be entitled to
added increment and arrears with effect from the date of
their retrenchment.
B
4) These benefits are being extended to all the Petitioners
of the aforesaid Contempt Petitions and all others who
are covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court
dated 31.1.2008, in accordance with the directions given
c by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, these benefits
would not have been available to them in normal course.
It is also pertinent to mention here that no other personnel
will be entitled to such benefits in future.
5) Services rendered by these personnel in U.P. Cement
D
Corporation Ltd., i.e., before their absorption in
government service, will not be considered for the purpose·
of their pensionary benefits."
15. After reproducing the said order, this Court noted that
E as the order had been substantially complied with the direction
given by the High Court and the order passed by this Court,
there is no valid reason to continue with the contempt
proceedings. Additionally, this Court added, which we may
F profitably-reproduce:-
"If the petitioners are not satisfied with the fixation of their
pay etc., they may make representation( s) to the competent
authority. Such representation shall be disposed of by
the concerned authority within next two months by passing
G speaking order. If the petitioners are not satisfied with
the order passed on their representation(s), then they shall
be free to avail appropriate legal remedy."
16. In the obtaining factual matrix, we are disposed to think
H that it was absolutely inappropriate on the part of the High Court
to go in search of ratio of the judgment rendered by the Single
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. 581
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
Judge on the earlier occasion, when the controversy had really A
been put to rest by this court. The Division Bench, we are
disposed to think, should not have entered the arena which
was absolutely unwarranted. The decision rendered by this
Court inter se parties was required to be followed in the same
fact situation. When the factual matrix was absolutely B
luminescent and did not require any kind of surgical dissection,
there was no necessity to take a different view. Needless to
say, this kind of situation procrastinate the litigations and the
litigants, as has been stated, though in a different context in
Koppisetty Venkat Ratnam v. Pamarti Venkayamma 4 is C
extremely expensive and time consuming.
17. In this regard, a few lines from Sundarjas Kanya/al
Bhatija v. Cottecto~ is worth reproducing:-
D
" ... One must remember that pursuit of the law, however
glctmorous it is, has its own limitation on the Bench. Ina
multi-Judge court, the Judges are bound by precedents
and procedure. They could use their discretion only when
there is no declared principle to be found, no rule and no E
authority."
We have highlighted this aspect as we intend to
ingeminate that this kind of unnecessary enthusiastic quest
should be avoided. It is because it is contrary to the principles . F
of judicial discipline. In this regard reference· to Official
Liquidator v. Dayananq and others6 would be apt. In the
said ruling, it has been observed thus:-
"There have been several instances of different Benches G
of the High Courts not following the judgments/orders of
coordinate and even larger Benches. In some cases, the
High Courts have gone to the extent of ignoring the law
• (2009) 4 sec 244
'(1989) 3 sec 396 H
• (2008) 1o sec 1
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.
A laid down by this Court without any tangible reason.
Likewise, there have been instances in which smaller
Benches of this Court have either ignored or bypassed
the ratio of the judgments of the larger Benches including
the Constitution Benches. These cases are illustrative of
B non-adherence to the rule of judicial discipline which is
sine qua non for sustaining the system."
18. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find no reason
that the appellants herein should not reap the benefits of
c absorption and, accordingly, it is directed that they shall be
absorbed by the State Government as per their seniority and
I
be given the benefit of increments, within eight weeks hence.
Needless to say, they will be entitled to their seniority as per
(
\
the prevalent rules. If anyone has been retired from service,
D he shall get the retiral benefits inclusive of pension.
19. At this juncture, the question arises as to what 'amount
should be paid towards back wages. In this context, our
attention has been invited to the order passed by this Court in
E contempt proceeding. However, after some debate, learned
counsel for the appellants left it to the discretion of this Court.
Ms. Reena Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for
the State vehemently opposed with regard to grant of any back
wages. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on
F this score and regard being had to the facts and circumstances
of the case, we think that the cause of justice would be best
sub-served if each of the appellant is paid 40% of the back
wages, and it is so directed. It shall be computed as per our
directions issued hereinbefore within a period of twelve weeks
G hence and be paid to the appellants.
21. The aforesaid appeals which relate to U.P. State
Cement Corporation Limitea are allowed accordingly. There
shall be no order as to costs.
H
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "absorption"Sign in to search