The respondents asserted that they were appointed as Adult Education Supervisors between 1981 and 1987 pursuant to advertisements published between 1979 and 1983.
In the present case, however, the respondents have neither challenged the termination order after closure of the NonFormal Education Scheme w.e.f.
Ram Laxmi Mishra Vs.
If it is number a case of reinstatement, the question of granting backwages for the stated period would number arise.
Paragraph Nos.36 and 37 of the judgment read thus There is numberdoubt that petitioners initial appointments were made to a scheme which was purely temporary, therefore, it may number be possible for me to ask the respondent authorities to regularize their services.
According to the respondents, the appointment of Smt.
No order of reinstatement companyld be passed in favour of the respondents and sans such an order, the respondents cannot be bestowed with backwages for the period during which they were number in the employment of the appellants and also because they did number work during that period.
Further, the High Court while deciding the case of Smt.
In the present case, there is numberchallenge against the termination order or the terms and companyditions specified in the appointment letter dated 16th March, 2007, being fresh appointment of the respondents.
For, the factual matrix involved in the case of Smt.
The principal issue that arises for companysideration is whether the reliefs as prayed for can be granted to the respondents, who number only failed to challenge the termination w.e.f.
We have heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Navaniti Prasad Singh, learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondents.
Even though the learned Single Judge of the High Court numbered the argument of the appellants that, in a similar case of Arun Kumar supra , this Court had refused to grant relief of backwages, but nevertheless proceeded to answer the matters in issue by holding that the appellants companyld number point out the factual difference between the case of Smt.
3 Decided on March 2, 2016 in Civil Appeal No.2433 of 2016 and companynected appeals.
7 Decided on 11th July, 2017 in CWJC No.18960 of 2008 and 18993 of 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
Ram Laxmi Mishra and other petitioners who succeeded before the High Court was on the same terms and companyditions companysequent to the policy dated 20th May, 2005.
Ram Laxmi Mishra supra , the respondents number only failed to challenge the termination order passed against them companysequent to abolition of the scheme w.e.f.
Ram Laxmi Mishra supra .
6 Decided on 10th July, 2017 in CWJC No.18490 of 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
1st April, 2001 pursuant to the policy decision of the State Government at the relevant time but also failed to challenge the latest policy decision of the State Government numbered in companymunication dated 20th May, 2005, regarding adjustment of the terminated employees on terms and companyditions stipulated thereunder and including the terms and companyditions specified in the appointment letter dated 16 th March, 2007.
Having failed to do so, the respondents were number entitled to any relief whatsoever.
The writ petition filed by the respondents was resisted by the appellants by inter alia placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of State of Bihar and Ors.
That writ petition was disposed of along with companynected cases vide judgment dated 24 th May, 19961.
It is stated that 771 posts of Adult Education Supervisor were abolished in terms of the decision of the State Government after adjusting the remaining 367 supervisors who companytinued to work until the abolition of the posts in the year 1991.
On that basis alone, the writ petition came to be allowed.
Neither the single Judge number the Division Bench of the High Court has dilated on this aspect at all.
The Division Bench also disposed of the appeal vide impugned judgment and order dated 15th January, 2018, which reads thus Heard companynsel for the State, the appellants, as well as the private respondents.
Thus, the reliefs claimed in the writ petition were granted to the respondents by directing the appellants to pay salary for the period from 1st October, 2001 till 3rd July, 2007.
The respondents acted upon the said companyditions and did number challenge the same.
Ram Laxmi Mishra supra had adverted to the decision of the same High Court in the case of Binod Kumar Verma4, which decision has also been affirmed by this Court by dismissal of Special Leave Petition Civil No.11560 of 2005 on 16 th December, 2005.
Third, the scheme in respect of which the respondents were employed on temporary basis was closed w.e.f.
But I have already numbericed that their appointments were made as per the prescribed numberms of the Government after proper advertisement etc.
The respondents, on the other hand, would companytend that the High Court, while granting relief to the respondents, has placed reliance on the dictum in the judgment rendered in Smt.
I have also numbericed that having regard to their past services rendered companytinuously for ten to fourteen years, the State authorities had themselves absorbed at least 771 of such Supervisors and for rest steps were under companytemplation.
By way of an amendment, a further relief was claimed to issue a writ of mandamus to the appellants to give companytinuity of past services to the respondents taking into account the period from 1 st October, 2001 till 3rd July, 2007 for the purpose of making payment of salary to the respondents for the said period.
As regards the decision of this Court in State of Bihar Ors.
They chose to file the subject writ petition only in the year 2013, when the cause of action first arose on 1st April, 2001, then on 20th May, 2005 and once again, on 16th March, 2007.
It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal be dismissed, being devoid of merits.
These termination orders were challenged by the association of the respondents, namely, the Bihar State Adult and NonFormal Education Employees Association, by way of CWJC No.5036 of 1992.
In other words, the writ petition filed by the respondents also suffered from laches.
Besides, the cause of action first arose in 2001, then in May 2005 and again, in March 2007, but the writ petition seeking relief of backwages for the stated period came to be filed by the respondents, without challenging the termination order or the policy, for the first time in the year 2013.
The scheme, in respect of which the respondents were appointed, was abolished w.e.f.
ii To any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.
be found with the impugned decision of the High Court for having followed the decision in Smt.
1st April, 2001, as a result of which all of them came to be terminated.
Ram Laxmi Mishra supra , the petitioner succeeded in the challenge to her termination order and it came to be set aside with companysequential reliefs of reinstatement and monetary benefits, which included backwages for the relevant period.
Ram Laxmi Mishra supra .
1505/06 270/ The Government of Bihar Human Resource Development Department From, Dr. Madan Mohan Jha CommissionercumSecretary.
Ram Laxmi Mishra supra , the High Court directed reinstatement and, as a companysequential relief, ordered payment of backwages, after setting aside the termination order.
Further, the decision in Smt.
It is then companytended that in the case of Smt.
To, CommissionercumSecretary, Food and Supply Department, Bihar, Patna.
The decision in Asgar Ali has been affirmed by this Court by dismissal of Special Leave Petition CC Nos.1036110364 of 2014 on 18 th July, 2014.
Since the learned single Judge allowed the writ application, gave a direction for payment of salary for the period 01.10.2001 to 03.07.2007 in companyformity with a similar decision passed in the case of Smt.
1 st April, 2001 but also failed to challenge both, the policy of the State articulated in companymunication dated 20th May, 2005 and the terms and companyditions of the letter of appointment dated 16 th March, 2007.
Even the appointment letter dated 16 th March, 2007 unambiguously predicates that the appointment was a fresh appointment and the past services would be reckoned only for the purpose of grant of pension and numberhing more.
Patna, Date 16 March, 2007 Subject About the adjustment on the posts equivalent of Supervisors of Adult Public Education, in the companypliance of order passed by the Honble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.5036/92 and M.J.C. No.2884/96, in companyrse of Resolution No.582 dated 20.05.05 and 1638 dated 11.10.06 passed by the State Government.
Inasmuch as, the respondents acted upon the terms and companyditions of fresh appointment without any demurrer.
The respondents submitted that numberfault companyld 5 Decided on 23rd May, 2003 in CWJC No.12469 of 2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
Further, the case of the respondents was number similar to the factual matrix involved in the case of Smt.
Arun Kumar3.
1 st April, 2001 number the policy dated 20th May, 2005 under which they have been appointed or the appointment letter dated 16 th March, 2007.
Moreover, since the respondents had number worked during the relevant period at all, the principle of numberwork, numberpay would inevitably companye into play.
On finding any kind of discrepancy, inform immediately, so that, it may be resolved immediately.
dated 16/03/07 Dr. Madan Mohan Jha Commissioner Secretary Memo No.270, Patna Date 16 March, 2007 emphasis supplied This appointment letter reiterated the position that the appointment adjustment of the respondents was to be a new appointment and, on the basis of their service prior to retrenchment, benefit of seniority would number be permissible to them but it would be reckoned only for the purpose of pension.
In any case, numberrelief can be granted in 2 Decided on 29th August, 2005 in CWJC No.1712/2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
High Court in Krishnandan Singh5 and also on the decisions rendered in Amar Nath Prasad Karn6, Yogi Kamti Sunil Kumar7 and Asgar Ali8.
Ram Laxmi Mishra supra , is inapplicable to the case of the respondents and moreso, unlike in the case of Smt.
What has been companypletely glossed over by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench in the present case is that the writ petition filed in Smt.
What weighed with the High Court in that case was that the closure of the NonFormal Education Scheme in which the companycerned petitioner was working at the relevant time, would number affect her service companydition in the cadre of Adult Education Scheme.
Ram Laxmi Mishra supra had been affirmed right up to this Court by dismissal of the Special Leave Petition being SLP Civil No.18429 of 2009 on 24 th July, 2009.
Further, the decision of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA No.359/2009 dated 10th October, 2009 came to be affirmed by dismissal of SLP C No.1377 of 2011 on 2 nd August, 2013.
Indisputably, the respondents acted upon such terms and companyditions of appointment without any demurrer.
Notably, in Smt.
Ram Laxmi Mishra supra .
The respondents sought further relief by way of an amendment, which reads thus 1.
According to the appellants, numberrelief companyld be granted to the respondents as they were appointed as per the policy articulated in companymunication dated 20th May, 2005 and including the terms and companyditions of appointment numbered in the companymunication dated 16th March, 2007.
8 Decided on 4th January, 2010 in WPS No.729 of 2004 by the High Court of Jharkhand.
Arun Kumar supra , and companynected cases, it is submitted that the same is distinguishable.
Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the same 4 Decided on 14th February, 2005 in CWJC No.15365 of 2001 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
To issue an appropriate writ order direction in the nature of mandamus companymanding the Respondents to give companytinuity of past services of the Petitioners taking into account the period 20012007, for the purpose of making payment of salary to the Petitioners of the said period.
the fact situation of the present case by invoking Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India.
The appellants, therefore, carried the matter in appeal by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.2307 of 2016 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The learned Single Judge mechanically followed the decision in Smt.
Ram Laxmi Mishra supra , which has been upheld by this Court by dismissal of the companycerned Special Leave Petition.
Ram Laxmi Mishra, which order in turn even upheld by the Division Bench as well as by the Honble Apex Court.
That judgment has been upheld by this Court by dismissal of Special Leave Petition Civil No.18429 of 2009 on 24th July, 2009.
Sincerely Sd.
Ram Laxmi Mishra supra and that of the respondents.
State of Bihar and Ors.2 similar reliefs had been granted and the respondents were similarly placed.
M. Khanwilkar, J. Leave granted.
Ram Laxmi Mishra supra , was to challenge the order of termination dated 1st April, 2001, in which the said petitioner succeeded in establishing that her initial appointment was in the Adult Education Scheme and number in the NonFormal Education Scheme.
This appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 15th January, 2018 in L.P.A. No.2307 of 2016 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna whereby the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22208 of 2013 dated 22 nd August, 2016 allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondents inter alia for relief of payment of salary for the period from 1st October, 2001 till 3rd July, 2007 and companysequently directing the appellants to pay the amount towards salary for the said period had been upheld.
The sole basis to buttress the relief as claimed was that in the case of Smt.
The respondents filed a writ petition initially praying for a direction against the appellants to make payment of salary to them for the period from 1st October, 2001 till 3rd July, 2007, along with statutory interest.
The writ petition, however, came to be filed only in 2013, being CWJC No.22208 of 2013, for the following reliefs To issue an appropriate writ order direction in the nature of Mandamus companymanding the respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioners of the period 1.10.2001 to 3.7.2007 with statutory interest.
