Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2003 DIGILAW 96 (SC)

SUGANA SARASWATHI v. GOVT. OF T. N.

2003-01-22

K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, P.VENKATARAMA REDDI

body2003
ORDER 1. THE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE APPELLANTS COMPRISING SFS NOS. 213, 215 AND 216 TOTALLING 7.50 ACRES OF LAND IN UPPIPALAYAM VILLAGE OF COIMBATORE TALUK, COIMBATORE DISTRICT WAS SOUGHT TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF A HOUSING SCHEME AND A NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4(1) WAS PUBLISHED ON 26-6-1985. A DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT WAS ALSO NOTIFIED. THE APPELLANTS HEREIN FILED A REPRESENTATION UNDER SECTION 48 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT ON 26-2-1996 PRAYING THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION MAY BE EXCLUDED FROM THE ACQUISITION. THIS COURT, ON 24-2-1997 PASSED AN ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT STATE TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT REGARDING THE FACTUAL POSITION IN REGARD TO THE FORMATION OF THE HOUSING SCHEME, FOR WHICH THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS SOUGHT TO BE ACQUIRED. IT WAS ALSO DIRECTED THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD INDICATE HOW MUCH OF THE LAND WAS SOUGHT TO BE ACQUIRED THEREUNDER AND WHAT EXTENT OF THE LAND WOULD BE UTILISED FOR THE OBJECT MENTIONED IN THE NOTIFICATION. THE STATE WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO INDICATE WHETHER IT PROPOSES TO GO AHEAD WITH THE HOUSING SCHEME HAVING REGARD TO THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE REGION. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, AN AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED. AFTER THE AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED, THE MATTER WAS AGAIN TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 21-4-2001. THE LEARNED COUNSEL WHO APPEARED FOR THE STATE GOVERNMENT SUBMITTED THAT A REPRESENTATION UNDER SECTION 48 FILED BY THE APPELLANTS IS PENDING AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT SHALL BE GIVEN 3 MONTHS TIME TO DECIDE THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. IN SPITE OF THIS ORDER, WE ARE TOLD THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT YET CONSIDERED THE SAID REPRESENTATION. A SIMILAR DIRECTION WAS ALSO PASSED ON 27-2-2002. WE ARE TOLD THAT IN SPITE OF THESE DIRECTIONS, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT TAKEN ANY DECISION ON THEIR REPRESENTATION. THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS FURTHER CONTENDS THAT THE PROPERTY WHICH BELONGS TO THESE APPELLANTS IS IN BLOCK 4 OF PHASE 4, AND IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS AT THE EXTREME END AND OTHER BUILDINGS HAVE COME UP IN THE NEARBY AREA AND THE SCHEME AS SUCH IS NOT CAPABLE OF BEING IMPLEMENTED, SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY IS CONCERNED. THE APPELLANTS COUNSEL ALSO RELIES ON THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. WE DO NOT EXPRESS ANYTHING REGARDING THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONERS. 2. THE APPELLANTS COUNSEL ALSO RELIES ON THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. WE DO NOT EXPRESS ANYTHING REGARDING THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONERS. 2. HAVING REGARD TO THIS FACT, THE STATE GOVERNMENT IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE UNDER SECTION 48 BY THE APPELLANTS WHICH SHALL BE DISPOSED OF WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM THIS DATE. THE APPELLANTS IMPLEMENT THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER AFOREMENTIONED IN LETTER AND SPIRIT, THEIR SERVICES WERE NOT REGULARISED. HAD THE RESPONDENTS FOLLOWED THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE SAID JUDGMENT, THEY COULD HAVE BEEN REGULARISED AND CONSEQUENTLY, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO GRANT OF PENSION BY TAKING THEIR LENGTH OF SERVICE INTO CONSIDERATION. THE RESPONDENTS HAVE FILED A DETAILED COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT RESISTING THE CLAIM MADE BY THE PETITIONERS IN THE WRIT PETITION. IN THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT IT IS POINTED OUT THAT ABOUT 7744 EMPLOYEES WERE WORK-CHARGED EMPLOYEES AND 5516 MUSTER ROLL EMPLOYEES; PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THIS COURT AND IN TERMS OF THE SCHEMES, THE SERVICES OF MORE THAN 5000 WORK-CHARGED EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN REGULARISED SINCE THE YEARS 1997 TO 2000. IN PARAGRAPH (D) OF THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT IN REGARD TO THE PENSIONARY BENEFITS, IT IS STATED THUS: "(D) AS REGARDS THE PENSIONARY BENEFITS, THE WORK-CHARGED EMPLOYEES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE SAME BECAUSE THEIR SERVICES ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE SERVICES OF THE REGULAR EMPLOYEES. THE SERVICES OF WORK-CHARGED EMPLOYEES ARE GOVERNED BY PROVISIONS OF PARA 669 OF THE FINANCIAL HANDBOOK READ WITH ARTICLES 361 AND 370 OF THE CIVIL SERVICES REGULATIONS AND AS SUCH THE WORK-CHARGED EMPLOYEES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE PENSIONARY BENEFITS. THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY PENSIONARY BENEFITS. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED PROVISIONS IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY PENSIONARY BENEFITS AND IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, NO RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED TO THE PETITIONERS AS REGARDS PENSIONARY BENEFITS. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE FINANCIAL HANDBOOK AND CIVIL SERVICES REGULATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE PETITIONERS IN THESE WRIT PETITIONS. A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF RELEVANT PARAS OF THE U.P. FINANCIAL HANDBOOK IS ANNEXED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE R-2. THE GRATUITY AMOUNT IS BEING PAID ON COMPLETING SUPERANNUATION AGE BY WORK-CHARGED EMPLOYEES." 2. IN THE SAID PARAGRAPH IT IS ALSO STATED THAT WORK-CHARGED EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED TO GRATUITY AND THE SAME IS BEING PAID TO THEM ON THEIR ATTAINING THE AGE OF SUPERANNUATION. THE GRATUITY AMOUNT IS BEING PAID ON COMPLETING SUPERANNUATION AGE BY WORK-CHARGED EMPLOYEES." 2. IN THE SAID PARAGRAPH IT IS ALSO STATED THAT WORK-CHARGED EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED TO GRATUITY AND THE SAME IS BEING PAID TO THEM ON THEIR ATTAINING THE AGE OF SUPERANNUATION. IT IS AGAIN POINTED OUT IN PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT THAT THE SERVICES OF WORK-CHARGED EMPLOYEES ARE SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT FROM THE SERVICES OF THE REGULAR EMPLOYEES. THE SERVICES OF THE WORK-CHARGED EMPLOYEES ARE GOVERNED BY THE FINANCIAL HANDBOOK, VOL. VI, PARAS 458 TO 463 AND 667 TO 669, READ WITH ARTICLES 361 AND 370 OF THE CIVIL SERVICES REGULATIONS. IN THEIR REPLY, THE STAND OF THE RESPONDENTS IS THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY PENSIONARY BENEFITS. 3. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN RAJ NARAIN EASEL AFOREMENTIONED, THE PETITIONERS WERE CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO REGULARISATION OF THEIR SERVICES HAVING REGARD TO THE LENGTH OF THEIR SERVICES AND TAKING NOTE THAT THEY HAD SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SCHEME; MERELY BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT SLEPT OVER OR DELAYED REGULARISATION OF THEIR SERVICES, THEY CANNOT BE DENIED THE PENSIONARY BENEFITS. HE FURTHER URGED THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF "LAST COME MUST FIRST GO" SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE RESPONDENTS. IN THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS THE RESPONDENTS HAVE DISCRIMINATED IN NOT REGULARISING THEIR SERVICES. 4. IN OPPOSITION, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS POINTED OUT TO A THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE WRIT PETITION THAT IT IS NOT SHOWN AS TO WHAT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OR RULES WERE BREACHED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN RELATION TO THE PETITIONERS; IT IS ALSO NOT SHOWN UNDER WHAT RULES THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO PENSION. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ADDED THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAVE, PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN AND OBSERVATIONS MADE IN RAJ NARAIN EASEL TAKEN STEPS AND SERVICES OF MORE THAN 5000 WORK-CHARGED EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN REGULARISED IN THAT REGARD; IT IS NOT SHOWN BY ANY SPECIFIC INSTANCE IF THE SERVICES OF JUNIORS TO THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN REGULARISED IGNORING THEIR CLAIMS. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WITHOUT SHOWING ANY FOUNDATION FOR THE CLAIM FOR PENSION NO RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED TO THE PETITIONERS. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WITHOUT SHOWING ANY FOUNDATION FOR THE CLAIM FOR PENSION NO RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED TO THE PETITIONERS. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE WRIT PETITION THAT THE PETITIONERS HAVE NOT SHOWN AS TO WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR THEIR CLAIM OF PENSION. THERE ARE TWO THINGS: ONE IS THE CLAIM FOR THE REGULARISATION OF THEIR SERVICES AND THE OTHER IS THE CLAIM FOR GRANT OF PENSION. THE EARLIER JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJ NARAINL AFOREMENTIONED RELATES ONLY TO REGULARISATION OF SERVICES. IF THE PETITIONERS HAD ANY GRIEVANCE REGARDING REGULARISATION OF THEIR SERVICES AND IF THEIR SERVICES WERE NOT REGULARISED EARLY OR IGNORING THEIR CLAIM SERVICES OF ANY JUNIORS WERE CONSIDERED, IT WAS OPEN TO THEM TO SEEK APPROPRIATE RELIEF BASED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT CLAIMING REGULARISATION OF THEIR SERVICES FROM A PARTICULAR DATE. THAT IS NOT THE CLAIM MADE IN THE WRIT PETITION. NO DETAILS OR PARTICULARS ARE GIVEN AS TO WHO ARE THOSE JUNIORS WHOSE SERVICES WERE REGULARISED IN PREFERENCE TO THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS. NO DOUBT PENSION IS NOT A BOUNTY, IT IS A VALUABLE RIGHT GIVEN TO AN EMPLOYEE, BUT, IN THE FIRST PLACE IT MUST BE SHOWN THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO PENSION UNDER A PARTICULAR RULE OR THE SCHEME, AS THE CASE MAY BE. IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IN THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT IT IS STATED THAT NO RULE IS QUOTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO SAY THAT UNDER A PARTICULAR RULE THEY ARE ENTITLED TO GRANT OF PENSION. IN THE REJOINDER FILED THE PETITIONERS HAVE ALSO NOT STATED AS TO UNDER WHAT RULES THEY ARE ENTITLED TO PENSION. SOME OF THE PETITIONERS, AS WE ARE TOLD, HAVE ALREADY ATTAINED THE AGE OF SUPERANNUATION. WE DO NOT HAVE MATERIAL BEFORE US TO SAY THAT UNDER WHAT SCHEME THE RESPONDENTS COULD CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS FOR REGULARISATION OF THEIR SERVICES AND IF SO, FROM WHAT DATE. IT IS STATED THAT MORE THAN 5000 WORK-CHARGED EMPLOYEES HAVE ALREADY BEEN REGULARISED. IF THE PETITIONERS HAD ANY GRIEVANCE OF NON-REGULARISATION OF THEIR SERVICES, AS ALREADY OBSERVED, IT WAS/IS OPEN FOR THEM TO CLAIM THE APPROPRIATE RELIEF, BUT, ONE THING IS CLEAR THAT UNLESS THE PETITIONERS SERVICES ARE REGULARISED IN THE FIRST PLACE, WE FIND IT DIFFICULT AS TO HOW THEY CAN CLAIM PENSION. IF THE PETITIONERS HAD ANY GRIEVANCE OF NON-REGULARISATION OF THEIR SERVICES, AS ALREADY OBSERVED, IT WAS/IS OPEN FOR THEM TO CLAIM THE APPROPRIATE RELIEF, BUT, ONE THING IS CLEAR THAT UNLESS THE PETITIONERS SERVICES ARE REGULARISED IN THE FIRST PLACE, WE FIND IT DIFFICULT AS TO HOW THEY CAN CLAIM PENSION. 6. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, FROM ANY ANGLE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS WRIT PETITION, AS A RESULT THE WRIT PETITION IS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.