- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 13 November 2007
- Bench
- Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam
- Result
- Appeals disposed of.
Headnote
Service Law:
Regularisation of service of part time lecturer-Filing of writ petitions by respondents-part time lecturers-:-Allowed by High Court directing Authorities to consider them for regularization-On appeal, Held: In the peculiar facts of the case, it would be appropriate for the High Court to deal with the matters a.fresh in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case ofHarguru Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.,-Thus, matter remitted to High Court for· consideration a.fresh.
The question which arose for determination in these appeals was as to whether the High Court was right in directing the appellants for regularization of services of the respondents-part time lecturers, though no such relief was sought for by them.
Appellants contended that the prayer in the writ petitions was not for regularization of the services and the relief sought for by them was different; and that by the impugned judgment, the High Court has directed to consider the case of the respondents for regularization de-hors the contractual clause indicated in the advertisement and mentioned in the terms of appointment.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: On the peculiar facts of the case, it would be appropriate for the High Court to deal with the matters afresh in the light of what bas been stated in the decided case of Harguru Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Oi·s. The matters are remitted to the High Court for consideration afresh. [1127-B]
Harguru Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Purljab & Ors. etc., C.A. No. 8745 of2003 (decided by Supreme Court on 7.11.2003), relied on.
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
I DR. ARIJIT P ASAY AT, J. 1. Leave granted.
¶2Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the High Comt of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents who were appointed as part time lecturers with the following directions:
"In view of the above, the petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioners for regularisation de-hors of the contractual clause indicated in the advertisement and also the same having been mentioned in the tenns of appointment. If regularised, they shall also be considered for being placed in the regular pay scale with the initial pay payable accordingly. This entire exercise be carried out by the respondents within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. It may be clarified that in view of the fact that the State has filed special leave petition against the judgment rendered in Ms. Maninder Kaur's case (supra), the result thereof shall also affect the consideration and the relief grantable and granted to the petitioners. This fact, may be specifically mentioned in the orders
pay scale. The appeals shall stand allowed in part accordingly." 6. It is also submitted that the case relied upon by the High Court has no relevance as it did not relate to part time lecturers and in fact related to some other part time engagements. It has also been submitted that in those cases also the matter has been remitted to the High Court.
¶7On the peculiar facts of the case, we feel it would be appropriate for the High Court to deal with the matters afresh in the light of what has been stated in Harguru 's case (supra). The matters are remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration.
¶8The appeals are accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5165-5167of2007.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 2.12.2004 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 20036/03, 3766/04 & 7500/04.
Appearances
Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, H.S. Sandhu, T.P. Mishra and Ajay Pal for the Appellant.
Ugra Shankar Prasad and S.K. Sabharwal for the Respondent.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.