- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Madan Singh And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The matters comprised appeals filed by special leave and a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Special leave was granted in SLP No. 15118 of 1986. The Court noted that the facts and questions for consideration were common across the cases and disposed of them by a single order.
The appellants/petitioners were employees in the work-charged establishment of the Irrigation Branch of the Public Works Department of the State Government of Haryana, and it was not disputed that they had been employed for many years. Their services were terminated under executive instructions, leading to the present proceedings.
The appeals were finally heard on 9-12-1987 and adjourned to enable the appellants' counsel to file fresh written submissions, which were subsequently placed before the Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the termination of the appellants'/petitioners' services under executive instructions was justified in the circumstances, including their long service and the alleged retention of juniors.
- Whether the appellants/petitioners were entitled to restoration to service and the benefit of State Government orders providing for absorption/regularisation of similarly placed persons.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' / Petitioners' Contentions
- The termination under executive instructions was not justifiable given their long period of service.
- Persons junior to them had been retained while their services were terminated.
- Fresh recruitment was made almost simultaneously with their termination, indicating that there was need for such services and thus no justification for termination.
- Reliance was placed on an order of the Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 8307-311 of 1983 (disposed of on 17-12-1985) concerning similarly placed employees in Karnataka, where the Court directed their return to service.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Writ Petitions Nos. 8307-311 of 1983 (disposed of on 17-12-1985) | An order directing return to service of similarly placed employees in the State of Karnataka. | Noted as being relied upon by the appellants/petitioners in support of restoration to service. |
| Dharwal Distt. v. State of Karnataka | Referenced in support of entitlement to continue in service in light of government orders for absorption/regularisation. | Cited while concluding that, considering continuous service and available government orders, the appellants/petitioners were entitled to continue in service. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court considered the submissions previously made and the fresh written note filed after the final hearing. On the circumstances appearing in the cases, it concluded that there was no justification for terminating the services of the appellants and petitioners.
A key aspect of the Court’s reasoning was that the State Government had issued orders from time to time for absorption of persons similarly situated. Taking into account the appellants’/petitioners’ continuous service, the Court held that the benefit conferred under those government orders was available to them, entitling them to continue in service. The Court also noted reliance on Dharwal Distt. v. State of Karnataka in this context.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED: The appeals and the writ petition were allowed, and the State of Haryana was directed to restore the appellants and petitioners to service and confer upon them the benefit indicated in the government order for regularisation of their services.
The benefit of the order was made conditional upon the affected parties reporting to duty within two months. The State was directed to confer the stated benefit within six months. For the period during which they were out of employment, the parties were not entitled to any benefit. No costs were awarded. The order operated to reinstate and regularise the parties per applicable government orders; no broader implication or new precedent is stated in the opinion.
Order
1. Appeals are by special leave. The writ petition is under Article 32 of the Constitution. Special leave is granted in SLP No. 15118 of 1986.
2. The facts and the questions for consideration by this Court in all these cases are common and, therefore, with this order all these cases shall stand disposed of.
3. The appellants in the appeals and the petitioners in the writ petition are employees in the work-charged establishment of the Irrigation Branch of the Public Works Department of the State Government of Haryana. It is not in dispute that they have been in employment for many years.
4. It is contended that termination of their services under executive instructions was not justifiable, particularly when they had put in such a long period of service and while persons junior to them in such service have been retained. It has further been contended that while the services of all these appellants have been terminated, fresh recruitment has been made almost simultaneously, which goes to show that there was need for such services and there was, therefore, no justification for termination of services of the appellants.
5. Reliance is also placed on an order of this Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 8307-311 of 1983 disposed of on 17-12-1985, wherein in regard to similarly placed employees in the State of Karnataka this Court had directed their return to service.
6. These appeals had been heard finally on 9-12-1987 and had been adjourned to enable counsel for the appellants to place fresh written submissions. Such submissions have been made today. We have taken into consideration the submissions made earlier and those in the written note now placed before us. We are of the view that in the circumstances, appearing in these cases, there was no justification for termination of the services of the appellants and the petitioners in the respective proceedings before us. The State Government had come forward with orders from time to time for absorption of persons like the parties before us. Taking into consideration their continuous service, the benefit conferred under those government orders is available to the appellants and, therefore, they are entitled to continue in service. Reliance has been placed on Dharwal Distt. v. State of Karnataka.
7. Taking all facts and circumstances into consideration, we direct that these appeals and the writ petition shall stand allowed with the direction to the State of Haryana to restore these appellants and petitioners to service as to confer upon them the benefit indicated in the government order for regularisation of their services. Those of the parties who report to duty within two months hence shall be entitled to the advantage of this order and the respondent State is directed to confer the benefit available to them as directed above within six months from now. So far as the period they are out of employment is concerned, they would not be entitled to any benefit. No costs.
Alert