STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ETC. v. SUPREET RAJPAL AND ANR. ETC.
vidhipandit.com/case/sc-2007-11-1124-1127
Machine-read from a scanned report. Check the printed page before citing. Report an error.
Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)
Service Law: C Regularisation of service ofpart 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 ofthe case, it would be appropriate for the High Court to deal with the matters a.fresh in the light ofthe judgment D ofSupreme 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 G 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 ofwhat bas been stated in the decided case of Harguru Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State ofPunjab & Oi·s. The matters are remitted to the High Court
Reporter's headnote (continued) and case details
A
NOVEMBER 13, 2007 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.J
..STATE v. SUPREETRAJPAL 1125 for consideration afresh. [1127-B] A Harguru Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State ofPurljab & Ors. etc., C.A. No. 8745 of2003 (decided by Supreme Court on 7.11.2003), relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5165- B 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. c 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.
Judgment
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D I
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge 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 G 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 H
STATEv. SUPREETRAJPAL[PASAYAT,J.] 1127
pay scale. The appeals shall stand allowed in part accordingly." A
66. 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. B
77. On 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.
88. The appeals are accordingly disposed of with no order as to c costs. S.K.S. Appeals disposed of.
Report an error in this judgment →
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0