STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Vs. PARMANAND SHUKLA (D) THR. LRS
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 11525 of 2014, Judgment Date: Dec 18, 2014
NON- REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11525 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 10968 of 2010)
State of U.P. & Ors. ....Appellant(s)
Versus
Parmanand Shukla (Dead)
Thr. L.Rs. ....Respondents(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre,J.
1. Leave granted
2. This civil appeal is filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment
dated 31.07.2009 passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 854 of 2009 which in turn arises out of
judgment dated 24.01.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 2479 of 2001.
3. By impugned judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the intra Court
appeal filed by the State and in consequence affirmed the order of the
learned Single Judge who had partly allowed the writ petition filed by the
original respondent herein, since dead, and now represented by his legal
representatives as respondent nos. 1 to 9 to continue the lis which was the
subject matter of the deceased's writ petition.
4. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass so also the
controversy, which has narrowed down to short issue on account of
subsequent events occurring during the pendency of this appeal requiring no
elaborate discussion to adjudicate any legal issue arising in this case.
5. A batch of writ petitions, one consisted of 48 persons (writ
petitioners), other with less number of persons and some by individuals
came to be filed against the State of UP and its Irrigation Department.
These writ petitions were filed with intervals. However, in all these writ
petitions whether filed collectively or/and individually, the grievance
raised therein was identical in nature so also the reliefs claimed by the
writ petitioners against the State/Irrigation Department. It was also
founded on identical facts and grounds.
6. In substance, the grievance of the writ petitioners (employees)
against the State was that these writ petitioners were engaged by the State
as daily waged muster roll employees by the Irrigation Department of Gandak
Region to work in their various divisions way back in the year 1982 and
onwards. They alleged that they continued to work till 1990 regularly when
their services were disengaged resulting in filing of the writ petition
(W.P. No. 45752/99) by these terminated employees for grant of appropriate
relief against the State. The High Court came to their rescue and by order
dated 21.03.2001 directed the State to dispose of the representations filed
by the writ petitioners keeping in view the principle of last come first
go. The State again discontinued their services in the year 2001 which
again gave rise to the filing of the aforesaid batch of writ petitions by
the terminated employees. One leading writ petition filed by 48 such
employees was C.M.W.P.No 29545/2001 .
7. This writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by order
17.01.2003 along with one more writ petition being C.M.W.P.No 29547/2001
in part wherein the High Court set aside the order dated 07.07.2001 passed
by the Executive Engineer by which the services of the petitioners were
terminated and accordingly directed the State to draw a list of the
petitioners as well as of other employees alike them on the basis of their
initial engagement in State service and then by offering them either daily
wage employment or regular employment, if available and if needed by the
concerned Divisions, in the State service. The State, felt aggrieved, filed
S.A.No.737/2003 before the Division Bench. The Division Bench dismissed the
appeal vide order dated 01.09.2004 and affirmed the directions issued by
the learned Single Judge. The State pursued the matter to this Court by
filing S.L.P. No.....CC342/2005 against the order of the Division Bench.
This Court by order dated 20.01.2005 dismissed the SLP.
8. So far as the original respondent of this appeal, namely, Mr.
Parmanand Shukla was concerned, he filed his individual writ petition being
W.P. No. 2479 of 2001 claiming therein the same reliefs, which were the
subject matter of the aforesaid batch of writ petitions/writ appeals/SLPs.
According to him, he too was working like other writ petitioners as muster
roll daily wage employee in the same Irrigation Department of State of U.P.
from 1986 till 2000 when his services were brought to an end along with
others giving rise to filing of the writ petition challenging his
termination order and for claiming regularization in the services.
9. However, the writ petition filed by the original respondent herein
was not clubbed with the aforesaid batch and the same remained pending. It
was, however, allowed by the learned Single Judge by order 24.01.2007 in
the light of leading order passed by the Single Judge in W.P.No 29545/2001
on 17.01.2003 which was by that time allowed by the learned Single and
upheld by the Division Bench and even by this Court by dismissing the
State's special leave to appeal. In other words, the respondent's writ
petition was allowed and he too was granted the same benefits, which were
granted to all the writ petitioners in the aforementioned batch of writ
petitions so as to maintain the parity and judicial consistency in passing
similar orders in identical nature of writ petitions.
10. However, the State instead of giving benefit of the order of the High
Court to respondent pursued the matter and filed intra court Appeal being
S.A. No. 854/2009 in the High Court out of which this appeal arises. The
Division Bench, by impugned order, dismissed the State's appeal and
affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. It is against the said
order, the State has filed this appeal.
11. During the pendency of this appeal, the original respondent (writ
petitioner) Parmanand Shukla left this world on 14.04.2013 leaving behind
his wife, 5 unmarried daughters, one minor son, old father and mother. They
were brought on record as his legal representatives as respondent Nos. 1-9
to contest this appeal.
12. On 30.06.2014, this Court observed that consequent upon the death of
original respondent (Parmanand Shukla), the benefit of reinstatement order
passed by the High Court in his favour was no longer available to him and
hence the matter can be amicably settled by directing the appellant
(State) to settle the whole claim to the limited extent of payment of 50%
of whatever benefits for which the respondent would have been found
entitled.
13. Accordingly, by orders dated 04.08.2014 and 25.8.2014, this Court
granted time to the parties to furnish details as to the amounts that would
be payable to the original respondent by way of services rendered by him
and also his claim of back wages payable for the period between the date of
his termination and death. The respondents have accordingly filed the
details along with the affidavit dated 06.09.2014. So far as the appellant
(State) is concerned, they have not filed any details nor filed any
affidavit and has left the issue to be decided by this Court having regard
to the totality of the circumstances.
14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused
the entire record of the case.
15. As mentioned above, this Court has already upheld the main order
passed by the High Court on 01.09.2004 in S.A. No. 737/2003 which had
arisen out of the order dated 17.01.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge
in main W.P.No 29545/2001 when SLP No.....CC342/2005 filed by the State was
dismissed by this Court on 20.01.2005 (Annexure-R-1). It was not disputed
that the present case though came to be decided later in point of time, but
it was identical in nature with the cases which were the subject matter of
SLP No.....CC342/2005 and hence the case in hand was rightly disposed of by
the learned Single Judge and then by the Division Bench by placing reliance
on the said judgments passed in identical cases by the High Court. In other
words, the original respondent of this case was also entitled to claim the
same benefits, which were granted to other similarly situated employees
like him by the High Court. Since the original respondent, in the meantime,
died and was deprived of the benefit of enjoying the relief of
reinstatement in State services along with other similarly situated
employees, he was at least entitled to be compensated by paying money
compensation to enable his large family to survive due to his untimely
death. At least, in our view, his claim to this extent survived.
16. As observed supra, since this Court has already dismissed the State's
SLP arising out of the main case on which the impugned order in question is
founded and hence, we are not inclined to entertain any legal submission
again though urged by the learned counsel for the appellant and nor in our
view, there arises any scope for the appellant to again press any legal
submission in this appeal and revive the controversy which has otherwise
attained finality.
17. Coming to the question as to what relief the respondents are now
entitled to get in this appeal in the light of subsequent events, which
occurred during the pendency of this appeal i.e., death of Parmanand Shukla
(original respondent), we are of the view that the respondents are only
entitled to receive money compensation from the appellant (State) in lieu
of the deceased's right to claim reinstatement in service and also his
right to receive any claim of back wages, if any. Indeed on this
question, the appellant did not join any issue seriously. We have,
accordingly, examined the case for grant of this relief.
18. Keeping in view the statement of details of payment of monthly salary
filed by the respondents-Legal Representatives coupled with other material
factors to enable this Court to work out a reasonable amount of
compensation payable to the original respondent such as - the length of the
service of the deceased, his age, total length of service rendered, rates
of daily wages payable to muster roll employees in State of UP from time to
time in the last three decades, and lastly large number of surviving
dependents (8) in the family, we are of the considered opinion that the
interest of justice would demand that the respondents are to be paid in
lump sum a total sum of Rs. 10 Lacs (Rs. Ten Lacs) by the appellant-State
in full and final settlement of all the claims arising out of this
litigation relating to the service of the original respondent- Parmanand
Shukla.
19. Let the amount of Rs. 10 Lacs (Rs. Ten Lacs) be paid to the
respondent - Smt Kiran Devi - wife of the deceased Parmanand Shukla by the
appellant (State of UP) within three months by account payee cheque/DD.
20. With these directions, the appeal stands disposed of.
.........................................................J.
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA]
.......................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
New Delhi;
December 18, 2014
-----------------------
14