Case: Govt. Of India  Vs. Court Liquidator'S Employees Assn

judgment of the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court and in the Kerala cases from the date of appointment.On the other hand, Mr. Malhotra, learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India, submitted that the appointees were not appointed by the Government and they were not paid salaries from the consolidated fund. On the other hand, they were paid salaries from the concerned companies under liquidation. In certain High Courts, there are Official Liquidators and Court Liquidators appointed under Section 38A of Banking (Regulation) Act. The Banking Companies under liquidation originally were 75, now only there are 32 banking companies under liquidation. The appointment under Court orders are not for a permanent department like Official Liquidators Office and, therefore, the appointees cannot demand regularisation and payment of equal salary as that of salaries paid to regular employees in the Office of the Official Liquidator.The hard reality is that the appointees are continued on the basis of fixed salary without any retiral benefits such as pension and gratuity for more than 25 years and the functions they are discharging are similar to the one discharged by the employees in the office of the Official Liquidator without getting equal treatment. In the circumstances, before rendering a decision on merits by the Court, Mr. Malhotra, learned senior counsel, desired that the government be given an opportunity to consider the matter in the light of the findings rendered by the High Courts and to come forward with an acceptable solution.The matters are adjourned by four weeks." 18. In response to the above order, the appellants through its Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Company Affairs, New Delhi, have filed an additional affidavit setting out the circumstances leading to the filing of the appeal and after referring to the Absorption Scheme of November, 1978, it is stated in paragraphs 14 to 16 as follows :- "14. That in pursuance to the order dated 14.01.1998, the Government considered various options to find out an acceptable solution in regard to the company paid staff. The following three options were discussed :-(i) One option that was discussed was to repeat scheme for absorption of Company Paid Staff as was done through the 1978 Scheme of Department of Company Affairs. There are certain practical problems in following this course of action. As per the 1978 scheme such absorption is possible to the extent of 50% only under the direct recruitment quota in the appropriate grade. As the position obtains in the Department of Company Affairs, there is lack of adequate number of vacancies in the aforesaid category (direct recruitment) for the purpose to facilitate absorption of all these company paid staff in the Department of Company Affairs.(ii) The second alternative that was discussed was to continue the present arrangement without absorption of these company paid staff. In such a situation, their salaries and service conditions could suitably be revised by the Honble Company Judges with reference to funds available with the OLs in the various High Courts. According to information gathered, most of the OLs attached to various High Courts have annual surpluses. The balances in the funds maintained by many OLs are substantial; and(iii) The third option that was discussed was to grant them age relaxation and ask them to sit in the open competitive examination as a one time measure. This would give them a general opening not restricted to jobs in these two Departments.15. The Government has considered the above three alternatives and is of the view that out of the said solutions, proposals at No. (ii) and (iii) of para 14 can be considered subject to the orders of this Honble Court.16. I further say and submit that the precedent of regularisation of the company paid staff referred to in the judgment of the Honble High Court relates to only those staff which was absorbed in pursuance of 1978 Scheme. There has been no regularisation, except for the cases of absorption falling under said 1978 Scheme." 19. We have already set out at more than one place about the findings of the Calcutta High Court and the Kerala High Court rejecting the contention put forward on behalf of the Union of India that the company paid staff were only appointed as per the order of the concerned Company Judge and the salaries were fixed by the Company Judge; that their appointments were purely on temporary basis and solely for the purpose of the work of liquidation proceedings under the charge of the Official Liquidator and that, therefore, they cannot be absorbed as regular Government servants. Both the High Courts have found that the company paid staff had been discharging the duties years together without any break identical to that of the government paid staff in the same Liquidators Office. It was also found that the company paid staff working both under the Court Liquidator and the Official Liquidator were grossly under paid and they have no retiral benefits even after working for 10-25 years.20. In view of the peculiar facts of these cases and the positive findings of the High Courts with which we concur, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the company paid staff cannot be absorbed/regularised as they were not employed by the Government in accordance with the rules; that they knew their appointments were only temporary and that their pay was not from the consolidated fund.21. Undoubtedly, counsel on both sides cited numerous authorities of this Court on earlier occasions sustaining the orders of absorption and setting aside the orders of absorption. We do not consider it necessary to refer to those decisions inasmuch as the facts presented before us and the findings rendered by the High Courts speak for themselves. As a matter of fact, the Government had considered as one of the options to absorb the company paid staff as was done through the 1978 Scheme of Department of Company Affairs.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]15. The Government has considered the above three alternatives and is of the view that out of the said solutions, proposals at No. (ii) and (iii) of para 14 can be considered subject to the orders of this Honble Court.16. I further say and submit that the precedent of regularisation of the company paid staff referred to in the judgment of the Honble High Court relates to only those staff which was absorbed in pursuance of 1978 Scheme. There has been no regularisation, except for the cases of absorption falling under said 1978 Scheme.We have already set out at more than one place about the findings of the Calcutta High Court and the Kerala High Court rejecting the contention put forward on behalf of the Union of India that the company paid staff were only appointed as per the order of the concerned Company Judge and the salaries were fixed by the Company Judge; that their appointments were purely on temporary basis and solely for the purpose of the work of liquidation proceedings under the charge of the Official Liquidator and that, therefore, they cannot be absorbed as regular Government servants. Both the High Courts have found that the company paid staff had been discharging the duties years together without any break identical to that of the government paid staff in the same Liquidators Office. It was also found that the company paid staff working both under the Court Liquidator and the Official Liquidator were grossly under paid and they have no retiral benefits even after working foryears.20. In view of the peculiar facts of these cases and the positive findings of the High Courts with which we concur, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the company paid staff cannot be absorbed/regularised as they were not employed by the Government in accordance with the rules; that they knew their appointments were only temporary and that their pay was not from the consolidated fund.21. Undoubtedly, counsel on both sides cited numerous authorities of this Court on earlier occasions sustaining the orders of absorption and setting aside the orders of absorption. We do not consider it necessary to refer to those decisions inasmuch as the facts presented before us and the findings rendered by the High Courts speak for themselves. As a matter of fact, the Government had considered as one of the options to absorb the company paid staff as was done through the 1978 Scheme of Department of Company Affairs.