The State Of Gujarat vs Pwd And Forest Employees Union

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 1684-1686 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 5028-5030 OF 2019) ARISING OUT OF DIARY NO. 43592 OF 2018)

THE STATE OF GUJARAT .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

PWD AND FOREST EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 1687-1689 of 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOs. 5031-5033 OF 2019) ARISING OUT OF DIARY NO. 36182 OF 2018)

JUDGMENT

A.K.SIKRI, J.

Leave granted.

2. In these appeals filed by the State of Gujarat, challenge is laid to

the common judgment dated June 14, 2018 passed by the High

Court of Gujarat in contempt proceedings which were initiated by

the respondents herein. To mention here, in nutshell, the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2019.02.15 appellant Government had passed Resolution dated October 17, 17:35:45 IST Reason:

1988 whereby certain benefits were given to its daily wage

Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. Page 1 of 18 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr. workers, who have been working for number of years. The

respondent Union, which represent those workers, had

approached the High Court for direction to extend those benefits

contained in Government Resolution (GR) dated October 17,

1988. Since this GR dated October 17, 1988 was not extended

to the Forest Department of the appellant, to which Department

the respondents belong, the respondents had filed writ petition in

the High Court seeking extension of GR dated October 17, 1988

in respect of Forest Department as well. This writ petition was

allowed by the single Judge of the High Court vide order dated

March 21, 1997. Letter Patents Appeal (LPA) was preferred

against the said judgment which was dismissed by the Division

Bench of the High Court on April 29, 2003. Special Leave

Petition (SLP) thereagainst was also dismissed by this Court on

November 29, 2004.

3. Thereafter, appellant passed another GR dated March 24, 2006

in respect of Road and Building Department for determining

pensionable service in cases of daily wagers having attained

permanency on account of application of GR dated October 17,

1988. However, this representation was dismissed by the

appellant on May 3, 2008. Respondents again approached the

Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. Page 2 of 18 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr. High Court against the dismissal of the said representation which

was decided by the High Court on October 29, 2010. By means

of said order, High Court directed the Forest and Environment

Department of the appellant to consider the case of the daily

wagers of the respondent union for regularisation/conferring

permanent status, afresh and also to consider framing of a

scheme for giving quasi permanent status to such workers at par

with the scheme for daily wagers in other Departments. This was

followed by another order dated August 25, 2011 passed in

Miscellaneous Civil Application whereby High Court directed the

appellant to frame a scheme for giving quasi permanent status to

daily wagers in compliance with its earlier judgment dated

October 29, 2010. LPA against this judgment was dismissed by

the High Court on February 28, 2012. The appellant challenged

the order in LPA by preferring SLP in this Court. Leave was

granted and ultimately appeal was heard and decided on July 9,

2013 which is reported as State of Gujarat & Ors. v. PWD

Employees Union & Ors.1. In this judgment, this Court inter alia

gave the following directions:

"28. Thus, the principal question that falls to be considered in these appeals is: whether in the facts and circumstances it will be desirable for the Court to direct the appellants to straightaway regularise the services of all the daily-wage workers working for more than five years or the 1 (2013) 12 SCC 417 Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. Page 3 of 18 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr. daily-wage workers working for more than five years are entitled for some other relief?

29. As per the scheme contained in the Resolution dated 17-10-1988 all the daily-wage workers were not entitled for regularisation or permanency in the services. As per the said Resolution the daily wagers are entitled to the following benefits:

“(i) They are entitled to daily wages as per the prevailing daily wages. If there is presence of more than 240 days in first year, daily wagers are eligible for paid Sunday, medical allowance and national festival holidays.

(ii) Daily wagers and semi-skilled workers who have service of more than five years and less than 10 years are entitled for fixed monthly salary along with dearness allowance as per prevailing standard, for his working days. Such daily wagers will get two optional leaves in addition to 14 miscellaneous leaves, Sunday leave and national festival holidays.

Such daily wagers will also be eligible for getting medical allowance and deduction of provident fund.

(iii) Daily wagers and semi-skilled workers who have service of more than ten years but less than 15 years are entitled to get minimum pay scale on a par with skilled workers along with dearness allowance as per prevailing standard, for his working days. Moreover, such daily wagers will get two optional leaves in addition to 14 miscellaneous leaves, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. He/She will be eligible for getting medical allowance and deduction of provident fund.

(iv) Daily wagers and semi-skilled workers who have service of more than 15 years will be considered as permanent worker and such semi-skilled workers will get current pay scale of skilled worker along with dearness allowance, local city allowance and house rent allowance. They will get the benefit as per the prevailing rules of gratuity, retired (sic retiral) salary, general provident fund. Moreover, they will get two optional leaves in addition to 14 miscellaneous leaves, 30 days' earned leave, 20 days' half-pay leave, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. Page 4 of 18 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr. The daily-wage workers and semi-skilled workers who have completed more than 15 years of their service will get one increment, two increments for 20 years service and three increments for 25 years in the current pay scale of skilled workers and their salary will be fixed accordingly.”

30. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Gujarat High Court dated 29-10-2010 in PWD Employees Union v. State of Gujarat [PWD Employees Union v. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application No. 8647 of 2008, order dated 29-10-2010 (Guj)] and connected matters and the fact that the said judgment is binding between the parties, we are of the view that the appellants should be directed to grant the benefit of the scheme as contained in the Resolution dated 17-10-1988 to all the daily-wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department working for more than five years, providing them the benefits as per our finding at para 29 above. The appellants are directed accordingly. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29-10-2010 [PWD Employees Union v. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application No. 8647 of 2008, order dated 29-10-2010 (Guj)] as affirmed by the Division Bench by its order dated 28-2-2012 [State of Gujarat v. PWD Employees Union, LPA No. 1754 of 2011 in Misc. Civil Application No. 17 of 2011, decided on 28-2-2012 (Guj)] stands modified to the extent above. The benefit should be granted to the eligible daily-wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department working for more than five years including those who are performing work other than building maintenance and repairing but they will be entitled for the consequential benefits w.e.f. 29-10-2010 or subsequent date from which they are so eligible within four months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. The appeals stand disposed of with the aforesaid observation and directions to the appellant State and its authorities. There shall be no separate orders as to costs.

Review filed by the appellant against this judgment was also

dismissed on January 29, 2014.

Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. Page 5 of 18 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr.

4. In the meantime, respondent Union preferred contempt petition in

the High Court. The appellant, on the other hand, filed

application for extension of time for compliance of the judgment

dated July 9, 2013. This Court granted six weeks time for

compliance.

5. Thereafter, the appellant issued GR dated September 15, 2014

as a policy decision to extend the benefit of the aforesaid

judgments. The respondents herein filed another contempt

petition submitting that this GR dated September 15, 2014 was

not in conformity with earlier GR dated October 17, 1988 and,

therefore, it amounted to contempt of the Court’s order as the

appellant had failed to carry out the directions of the Court by not

giving the benefits in terms of GR dated October 17, 1988. The

High Court has accepted the contention of the respondents

herein. In its detailed judgment dated June 14, 2018, though it

has held that case for contempt was not made out, at the same

time, the petition is disposed of with the following directions:

"34. The respondents are directed to extend the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as ordered by the Supreme Court in order dated 09.07.2013 passed in case of PWD Employees’ Union (supra) and as reiterated by the learned Single Judge in its order on 11.6.2015 in the proceeding of SCA 9814 of 2014 and examine the case of all the concerned in light thereof and without being influenced by their own Government Resolution dated 15.9.2014, as we have categorically held that Government Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. Page 6 of 18 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr. Resolution to be not in consonance with the Supreme Court order dated 09.07.2013 passed in case of PWD Employees’ Union (supra). The entire exercise shall be over within period of 60 days from the date of receipt of writ of the order. We dispose of this petition with aforesaid directions. Notice discharged in each matter. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”

6. It may be noted that while giving the aforesaid directions, the

order contains a detailed discussion to the effect that GR dated

September 15, 2014 is deviation from earlier GR dated October

17, 1988 as per which the appellant was supposed to give the

benefits to the respondents.

7. In challenging the aforesaid order of the High Court by way of

present appeals, the contention of the appellant is that GR dated

September 15, 2014 was in fact issued to implement the

judgment of the court in letter and spirit. The case set up by the

appellant is that the Forest Department in the State Government,

while extending the above benefits to all the daily wage workers

of the Forest Department, and in order to maintain uniformity with

regard to applicability of GR dated October 17, 1988 to daily

wage workers working in different divisions/Districts of the Forest

Department of the State, issued a GR dated September 15, 2014.

The said Resolution is based on GR dated October 17, 1988 and

subsequent Resolutions. The reliefs granted by this Court have

Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. Page 7 of 18 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr. been extended to nearly 58000 workers. The judgment of this

Court as directed above has been substantially complied with. As

per the appellant, the Forest Department of the State has

followed the interpretation of core GR dated October 17, 1988 as

revised and clarified from time to time and has come up with the

GR dated September 15, 2014 with the assistance of the Road

and Building Department of the State.

8. When these matters came up for preliminary hearing,

respondents appeared through caveat. Since the appellant is

maintaining that many benefits are given to the respondents in

terms of the judgment, the appellant was advised to demonstrate

as to how the judgment was implemented. On January 09, 2019,

Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant, submitted a chart to this effect. Learned senior

counsel appearing for the respondents requested for time to

respond to the same and accordingly time was granted.

Respondents filed their reply. The matter came up for hearing

again on January 23, 2019 when the appellant sought time to

take instructions qua certain averments contained in the reply.

Accordingly, the matter was posted for hearing on February 06,

2019.

Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. Page 8 of 18 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr.

9. During the arguments on February 06, 2019, the appellant

handed over their submissions in response to reply filed by the

respondent Union which has narrowed down the controversy

considerably. Those matters where difference between the

parties persists, arguments were heard.

10. In order to understand the manner in which judgment had been

implemented by the appellant, we may reproduce the chart that

was handed over to the Court on January 09, 2019. It is as

under:

Number of Benefits Prevailing Prevailing Present Pay years granted vide Standards of Daily Wages Scale (Grade worked GR dated Daily Wages on 29.10.2010 Pay + Pay 17.10.1988 on 17.10.1988 Band + D.A. + H.R.A. + Misc.

Expense) 1 Presence of Entitled to daily Rs.452/- per Rs. 4456/- per more than wages as per month month 240 days in the prevailing first year daily wages 2 Service of Entitled to fixed Rs.750/- + Fixed Pay of Ranging from more than monthly salary (D.A. 23%) Rs. 4440/- + Rs.15,144 – five years and along with DA Grade Pay of Rs. 18,307 less than ten as per Rs. 1300 + years prevailing D.A. (45%) standard 3 Service of Minimum pay Pay Scale of Pay Scale of Ranging from more than ten scale at par Rs. 750-940 + Rs. 4440-7440 Rs. 12,162 – years but less with skilled D.A. (23%) + Grade Pay Rs. 18,848 than fifteen workers along of Rs. 1300/- + years with DA D.A. (45%) + (according to 3% increment the number of each year. years worked) 4 Service of Current pay Pay Scale of Pay Scale of Rs. 16,241 – more than scale of skilled Rs. 750-940 + Rs. 4440-7440 18,848 fifteen years worker with DA D.A. (23%) + + Grade Pay (according to and HRA additional 1 of Rs. 1300/- + the number of

Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. Page 9 of 18

(arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr.

increment (3% D.A. (45%) + years + 3%) 3% increment worked) each year + additional 1 increment.

5 Service of Pay Scale of Fixed Pay of Ranging from more than 20 Rs. 750-940 + Rs. 4440-7440 Rs. 18637 – years D.A. (23%) + + Grade Pay 19414/- annual of Rs. 1300/- + increment D.A. (45%) + (according to 3% increment the number of each year + 2 years additional worked) increment. 6 Service of Pay Scale of Fixed Pay of Rs. 20,005 more than 25 Rs. 750-940 + Rs. 4440-7440 years D.A. (23%) + + Grade Pay additional 3 of Rs. 1300/- + increments D.A. (45%) + (3% + 3% + 3% increment 3% + 3%) each year + additional 3 increment.

11. The respondents have given their version in tabulated/chart form

which according to them is in terms of GR dated October 17,

1988 as directed by this Court in its decision dated July 09, 2013.

The chart prepared by the respondents is as follows:

Number of years Benefits under Prevailing Entitlement on worked GR dated Standard of 29.10.2010 17.10.1988 Wages under GR dated 17.10.1988 1 Presence of more Entitled to daily Rs.452/- per Rs. 4456/- per than 240 days in wages as per the month month year prevailing daily wages + Paid Sundays + Medical Allowance (MA) + National Festival Holidays 2 Service of more Entitled to fixed Rs.750/- + (D.A. Fixed Pay of Rs.

than five years and monthly salary 23%) 4440/- + Grade Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. Page 10 of 18 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr.

less than ten years along with DA as Pay of Rs. 1300 + per prevailing D.A. (45%) standard MA + deduction MA + deduction MA + deduction of of GPF + 2 of GPF General Provident voluntary/ Fund (GPF) optional + 14 2 voluntary/ 2 voluntary/ casual leaves + optional + 14 optional/ holidays on casual leaves + restricted + 12 Sundays + holidays on casual leaves + National Sundays + holidays on Holidays National Sundays + allowed with Holidays allowed National Holidays pay. with pay. allowed with pay. 3 Service of more Minimum pay scale Pay Scale of Rs. Pay Band of Rs. than ten years but at par with skilled 950-1500 + D.A. 5200-20,200 with less than fifteen workers along with (23%) + yearly Grade Pay of Rs. years DA increments.1900 + D.A. (45%) + 3%

MA + deduction of MA + deduction increment every CPF of CPF year

2 voluntary/ 2 voluntary/ MA + deduction optional + 14 optional + 14 of GPF casual leaves + casual leaves + holidays on holiday on 2 voluntary/ Sundays + Sundays + optional + 14 National Holidays National casual leaves + allowed with pay. Holidays holiday on allowed with Sundays + pay National Holidays allowed with pay 4 Service of more Current pay scale Pay Scale of Rs. Pay Band of Rs.

than fifteen years of skilled worker 950-1500 + D.A. 5200-20,200 with with DA and HRA + (23%) + Grade Pay of Rs. local additional 1 1900 + D.A. compensatory increment (3%) + (45%) + additional allowance (3%) yearly 1 increment + 3% increment + increment every local year + local compensatory compensatory allowance and allowance and Gratuity + house rent house rent Pension + General allowance. allowance Provident Fund Gratuity + Gratuity + 2 voluntary/ Pension + Pension + optional leaves + General General 14 days Casual Provident Fund Provident Fund Leave + 30 days earned leave + 20 2 voluntary/ 2 voluntary/ days half-pay optional leaves optional leaves +

Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. Page 11 of 18

(arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr. leave during the + 14 days 14 days Casual year + holidays on Casual Leave + Leave + 30 days Sunday every 30 days earned earned leave + week + National leave + 20 days 20 days half-pay Holidays. half-pay leave leave during the during the year year + holidays + holidays on on Sunday every Sunday every week + National week + National Holidays.

Holidays.

5 Service of more Two increment for Pay Scale of Rs. Pay Band of Rs. than twenty years 20 years service 950-1500 + D.A. 5200-20,200 with in the concerned (23%) + Grade Pay of Rs.

pay scale of additional 2 1900 + D.A. skilled worker increment (3%) + (45%) + additional (3%) yearly 2 increment + 3% increment + increment every local year + local compensatory compensatory allowance and allowance and house rent house rent allowance. allowance

Other benefits Other benefits as as mentioned in mentioned in row 4 of column row 4 of column 4. 4. 6 Service of more Three increment Pay Scale of Rs. Pay Band of Rs. than 25 years for 25 years 950-1500 + D.A. 5200-20,200 with service in the (23%) + Grade Pay of Rs. concerned pay additional 3 1900 + D.A. scale of skilled increment (3%) + (45%) + additional worker (3%) yearly 3 increment + 3% increment + increment every local year + local compensatory compensatory allowance and allowance and house rent house rent allowance. allowance

Other benefits Other benefits as as mentioned in mentioned in row 4 of column row 4 of column 4. 4.

12. The appellant has, in the written submissions, generally accepted

the position given above. However, the appellant has given this

acceptance subject to following exceptions: Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. Page 12 of 18

(arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr.

(i) In the category mentioned at Serial Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6,

every worker is not entitled to the pay scale mentioned by them

as per GR dated October 17, 1988 or in the corresponding scale

on October 29, 2010 because once they become permanent, they

will have to be fitted in the job description in terms of the Gujarat

Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred

to as the ‘Rules’) as revised from time to time and not by

Minimum Wages Act. Any anomaly within the same job

description between people who have been regularly appointed

and these workers of the respondent union would mean that

everybody else will ask for it not only in this department, but other

department of Government will have great difficulty in adhering to

it. The pay scale mentioned in Serial Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 cannot

be applied across the board.

(ii) The old Pension Scheme has been scrapped by the

Government and Contributory Pension Fund (CPF) Scheme/New

Pension Scheme (NPS) has been introduced with effect from

April 01, 2005. Therefore, CPF Scheme/NPS has been made

applicable under the GR dated September 15, 2014, and the

benefits of the same are being granted to the workers of the

respondent union.

Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. Page 13 of 18 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr.

(iii) Similarly, the old General Provident Fund (GPF) Scheme

has been scrapped by the Government and CPF Scheme has

been introduced with effect from April 01, 2005. Therefore, CPF

Scheme has been made applicable, and the benefits of the same

are being granted to the workers of the respondent union.

(iv) The worker is given benefit of past services considering the

earlier period on which he worked for more than 240 days in a

year.

(v) The GR dated October 17, 1988 provides for 14 days of

casual leave including 2 days of voluntary leave/optional leave.

However, due to inadvertent translation errors, the judgment

passed by this Court directed 14 days of casual leave in addition

to 2 days of voluntary leave/optional leave. Therefore, the GR

dated September 15, 2014 has incorporated the two days of

voluntary leave/restricted leave and 12 days of casual leave

which is applicable to all Government employees.

13. Having regard to the above, we are confining our discussion to

the aforesaid exceptions taken by the appellant. In the first

instance, it is pointed out by the appellant that even if the

respondents become permanent, they would be entitled to be

fitted in the job description in terms of the Rules. What is

Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. Page 14 of 18 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr. emphasised is that even after regularisation, their pay scales

cannot be more than the pay which is given to the employees

who are taken on permanent basis. This appears to be a very

sound argument. The only plea was that whatever is given to

such employees in other departments, same benefit be extended

to the respondents as well. It is difficult to countenance this

submission which we find to be legally impermissible. That is

hardly any justifiable response to rebut the same. It is to be kept

in mind that members of respondent union were all engaged on

daily wage basis. No doubt, the appellant Government decided

to confer certain benefits upon these daily wage workers

depending upon the number of years of service they put in.

Judgment dated July 09, 2013 proceeds on that basis. Under

certain circumstances, namely, on completion of specified

number of years of service on daily wage basis, these daily wage

workers are entitled to become permanent. On attaining the

status of permanency/regular employees, they become at par

with those employees who were appointed on permanent basis

from beginning, after undergoing the proper selection procedure

on proving their merit. These daily wagers cannot be given the

pay scales which are even better than the pay scales given to

regularly appointed employees. The Rules are statutory in nature

Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. Page 15 of 18 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr. which have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by the

proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. On becoming

permanent, such daily wagers can, at the most, claim that they be

fitted in the job descriptions in terms of the said pay rules and

their pay be fixed accordingly. The appellant is ready to do that.

We, therefore, accept the plea mentioned in exception (i) above.

14. Insofar as plea at paras (ii) and (iii) is concerned, the appellant

intends to deny the benefit of GPF on the ground that w.e.f. April

01, 2005, CPF Scheme/NPS has been introduced. However, on

that basis, all such employees cannot be denied the benefit of

GPF. The earlier pension scheme continues to annued to the

benefit of those who enter the service before April 01, 2005.

Therefore, all those daily wagers who become entitled to get the

status of regular/permanent employees before April 01, 2005 has

to be given the benefit of GPF. To put it otherwise, April 01, 2005

would be treated as cut-off date. All those persons who would be

entitled to regularisation/permanent status prior to April 01, 2005

shall be given the benefit of earlier scheme i.e. GPF. However,

those who attain this status after April 01, 2005 shall be governed

by CPF Scheme/NPS.

Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. Page 16 of 18 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr.

15. Insofar as exception (iv) mentioned by the appellant is concerned,

there appears to be some merit therein. For counting the number

of years for giving benefit to the workers in terms of judgment

dated July 09, 2013, only those years would be taken into

consideration wherein these workers had worked for 240 days or

more in a year i.e. in consonance with the GR dated October 17,

1988. Furthermore, there is no direction in the judgment of this

Court to the effect that the period of service of 240 days in a year

should be only in the initial year and not thereafter. In fact, when

the learned senior counsel for the respondents were confronted

with the aforesaid position, they conceded to this position.

16. Insofar as exception (v) noted above is concerned, it is not in

dispute that regular employees are entitled to 12 days of casual

leave in a year i.e. applicable to all Government employees and

the respondents could not dispute this. The respondents

workers who have been working on daily wage basis cannot be

given casual leave which is more than the entitlement extended

to regular Government employees. We accept the plea of the

appellant that GR dated October 17, 1988 which provides for 14

days casual leave including 2 days of voluntary/optional leave is

the result of inadvertent transaction error. Even otherwise, as

Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. Page 17 of 18 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr. pointed out above, the casual leave for daily wagers cannot be

more than the regular Government employees. We, therefore,

hold that the respondents employees shall be entitled to 12 days

of casual leave and 2 days of voluntary leave/restricted leave.

17. With the aforesaid clarifications, the benefits payable to the

members of the respondents union shall now be worked out and

the same be paid to them. Exercise in this behalf shall be

completed within a period of two months from the date of this

judgment. The impugned judgment of the High Court is modified

and the appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.

.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)

.............................................J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER)

.............................................J. (M.R. SHAH) NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 15, 2019.

Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. Page 18 of 18 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr.