Deepak Kumar & Ors. vs Principal Secretary Home, Govt. of U.P Lucknow (U.P) & Ors.

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 16355 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 10004 OF 2016]

DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. Appellant (s)

VERSUS

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME, GOVT. OF U.P LUCKNOW (U.P) & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 16356 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 10006 OF 2016]

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 16357 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 10008 OF 2016]

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 16358 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 10005 OF 2016]

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. As requested by Mr. V. Giri, learned senior

counsel, the appellants are at liberty to amend the

cause title.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved Signature Not Verified

by an order dated 27.10.2015 passed by the High Court Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.11.30 10:31:32 IST Reason:

of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal

(Defective) No. 707 of 2015. They moved the High 2

Court, invoking its contempt jurisdiction, praying

for appropriate direction for payment of the entire

salary for the period from the date of termination to

the date of reinstatement. Having regard to the

various orders passed by the Court, the High Court

was not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction in

contempt proceedings and, therefore, dismissed the

Special Appeal with liberty to the appellants to work

out their remedy for appropriate proceedings.

4. When the matter came up before this Court, after

having heard the learned counsel on both sides, this

Court passed the following order on 17.08.2017 :-

“Application for impleadment, filed in SLP(C) No.10006/2016, is taken on Board and is allowed.

These are the cases where in the State of Uttar Pradesh the police constables recruited and appointed during 2005-06 were terminated in September, 2007. That termination has been held to be wrong by the learned Single Judge and confirmed thereafter by the Division Bench. Since the declaration regarding the termination to be bad in law stands even as on today, in any case the constables who were terminated during 2005-06 are entitled to continuity of service from their respective date of termination to 3

the date of reinstatement. According to the State it is a fresh appointment, which we find difficult to appreciate in view of the judgment of the High Court.

We agree with the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh that in the peculiar facts of these cases, in any case they will not be entitled to backwages from the date of termination till the date of judgment of the learned Single Judge. The remaining question is only with regard to the backwages from the date of judgment by the learned Single Judge i.e. 8.12.2008 to 27.05.2009, the date of reinstatement.

Learned Additional Advocate General invited our reference to the judgment dated 4.3.2009, wherein the Division Bench, after agreeing with the learned Single Judge in the matter of cancellation of the appointment as bad, has granted liberty to the State to conduct a fresh exercise and, therefore, it is submitted that the constables may not be entitled to any backwages from the date of the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the actual date of fresh appointment/ 4

reinstatement.

We find it difficult to wholly agree with the learned Additional Advocate General. As far as the people who are before this Court, we are tentatively of the view that they must be entitled to some equitable relief in the matter of backwages for the period from 8.12.2008 to 27.05.2009.

We make it clear that this equitable relief would be confined only to the people who are before this Court either as petitioners or as impleaders, as on today.

The Registry is directed not to entertain any impleadment or fresh petition in respect of the subject matter involved in these petitions. Learned Additional Advocate General of the State of U.P. seeks some time to get instruction.

Post on 12.09.2017.”

5. The State of U.P. has filed a detailed additional

affidavit in response to the order extracted above.

In the nature of the order we propose to pass, it is

not necessary to refer to the stand of the State

except to take note of the fact that the case has a

chequered history. Despite the liberty granted by

the High Court to weed out the allegedly tainted

candidates, it appears that no such exercise was 5

undertaken and all of them have been taken back into

service. That liberty was granted by the Division

Bench of the High Court in the order dated

04.03.2009. The reinstatement was made on

27.05.2009. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the

learned senior counsel appearing for the State that

if at all, any exercise could have been done by the

State, it would have been only pursuant to the order

dated 04.03.2009. Mr. V. Giri, learned senior

counsel appearing for the appellants, would contend

that the High Court, in the original jurisdiction,

having held that the termination was otherwise

illegal, the only corollary to the declaration is

that the appellants should be deemed to be ‘in

service’ for all purposes.

6. Having regard to the background of the

allegations pursuant to which the termination was

effected, we are of the view that the State, having

resolved to take back all employees into service

without further inquiry, has itself shown sufficient

grace to the appellants. The respondents, having

acted within three months from the final order passed

by the Division Bench of the High Court, we find that

the tentative view taken by this Court in the order

dated 17.08.2017 needs to be revisited. 6

7. Having said that, in case these appeals are

dismissed, there would still be scope for further

litigation between the parties in view of the liberty

granted by the High Court in the impugned order. The

learned senior counsel appearing on both sides have

submitted that there should not be any further

litigation on this count.

8. Having regard to the entire facts and

circumstances of the case, we are of the view that

the interest of justice would be met in case the

appellants before this Court are granted litigation

expenses, which would be in full and final settlement

of all their claims, which they have been pursuing

before the High Court. This benefit will be

available only to those Constables who have chosen to

pursue their grievance before this Court upto

17.08.2017, when this Court passed the order referred

to in Paragraph 4 above. The litigation expenses are

quantified to Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five

Thousand). This amount shall be paid to each of

those Constables covered by this order on or before

20.12.2017. It is made clear that in case the

appellants are not paid the above amount within the

stipulated time, they shall be entitled to interest

at the rate of 18% from the date of termination. 7

9. We also make it clear that this Judgment is

passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of

this case and this benefit shall not be available to

any other similarly situated employee(s) who had been

reinstated pursuant to the order dated 04.03.2009

passed by the High Court.

10. Since the entire litigation has been given a

quietus, we make it clear that for all other

purposes, the Constables concerned who had been

terminated in 2006-2007, will be treated to be ‘in

continuous service’ except for the Assured Career

Progression (ACP), for which the actual service, when

they discharged the duties, will be counted.

11. With the above observations and directions, the

appeals are disposed of.

.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]

.......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI ]

New Delhi;

October 10, 2017.

8

ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.4 SECTION XI

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10004/2016

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-10-2015 in SAD No. 707/2015 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad)

DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME, GOVT. OF U.P LUCKNOW (U.P) & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No.70474/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS and IA No.70476/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

WITH

SLP(C) No. 10006/2016 (XI) (IA No.69737/2017-impleading party and IA No.70477/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS and IA No.70478/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 10005/2016 (XI) (IA No.70466/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS and IA No.70468/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 10008/2016 (XI) (IA No.70481/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS and IA No.70482/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 10-10-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

Counsel for the parties Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Krishna M. Singh, Adv.

Mr. S. R. Setia, AOR Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, AOR

Mr. V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, AAG, UP Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv.

Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, AOR 9

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeals are disposed of in terms of the non-reportable

Judgment.

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)