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

The respondent Nos. 2 to 64 in Civil Appeal No. 5642/94 are the employees in the office of the Court Liquidator in the Calcutta High Court. Aggrieved by the disparity inand deprivation of allowances and retiral benefits, they moved matter No. 756 of 1991 before a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court. They claimed that they must be treated as employees of the Central Government and should be given full status of permanent Central Government employees on the expiry of 360 days of joining their service besides regularwith avenues for promotion, pension, provident fund and other service benefits on the basis of their length of service.2. The learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court ruled that writ petitioners/respondent Nos. 2 to 64 herein should be given the full status of permanent Central Government employees on the expiry of 360 days of their joining the service. However, the learned Judge restricted the arrears for a period of three years prior to the date of the said judgment. The learned Judge safeguarded the right with reference to their fitment in the appropriate scale and the benefit of promotion having due regard to the length of service. Likewise, the learned Judge ordered their entitlement for pension, provident fund, gratuity again with regard to their length of service.3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants preferred an appeal to the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.4. The learned Judges, after carefully considering the rival submissions, found that the respondent Nos. 2 to 64 had been working for the lastyears. Their service was neither regularised nor they were given the status of Government employees; theirwere not in conformity with that of theof their counterparts in various other Departments/Offices; that they were given very low scale of pay without any permanent orstatus and they were required to retire on attaining the age of 58 years but empty handed. The Division Bench also found that the appellants could not substantiate the contention that the respondents were not in work of perennial nature and as such cannot be absorbed as Central Government employees. The learned Judges further found that there was no reasonable basis for making classification or denial of equal treatment between the employees of the Court Liquidator and the Official Liquidator when they were found to turn out the same and similar nature of work. Ultimately, the learned Judges found that the respondents herein could not be denied the benefits and status which were enjoyed by their counterparts employed in the Office of Official Liquidator. It was further held that there was no rational basis for making classification between the two groups of employees and, therefore, the respondents were entitled to be equally treated and all the benefits as were conferred and enjoyed by the employees attached to the Office of Official Liquidator should be extended to them as well. In the light of the findings as noticed above, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants. Hence, the present appeal.5. Let us now give the facts in Civil Appeal No. 5677/94. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 27.8.1993 of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 9732 ofThe contesting respondents, who were the petitioners in the High Court, were working as Estate Clerks, otherwise known as Company Paid Staff (hereinafter referred to as `Company Paid Staff), in the Office of the Official Liquidator, High Court of Kerala. It is not in dispute that the said Company Paid Staff were working in the Office of the Official Liquidator continuously and without any break for years together. They were appointed by the Official Liquidator pursuant to the orders of the High Court under Rules 308 and 309 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. It is also common ground that the Company Paid Staff had been discharging their duties and functions identical to those of the staff employed by the Central Government in the Office of the Official Liquidator. The Company Paid Staff moved the High Court seeking absorption on a regular basis. They brought to the notice of the Court that on an earlier occasion on 1.7.1978 similarly situated Company Paid Staff were absorbed as regularly paid staff.6. The petition was opposed by the appellants (respondents before the High Court) contending that the Company Paid Staff were not employed by the Government; that their employment was of casual nature; that they were paid out of the funds of the Companies in liquidation and not from the Consolidated fund of India; that such appointments were made by the Official Liquidator to meet administrative exigencies to discharge the functions entrusted to him as Official Liquidator and that, therefore, they cannot claim regularisation or absorption in the Government service.7. The High Court, on the basis of the pleadings and arguments raised before it, considered two questions, namely, (a) whether the continuous employment of petitioners enables them to claim regularisation in service and other benefits; (b) whether the principle of `equal pay for equal work applies to them. The learned Judges, after referring to a number of decisions of this Court, found that the Company Paid Staff were appointed according to law and by a qualified Central Government functionary and that their appointments were regular and proper; that they had been in employment for periods ranging from five to ten years; that it has not been pointed out that any of the Company Paid Staff is unsuitable for the post now held by him; that the respondents (appellants herein) have not made out any case that the services of the Company Paid Staff are no longer required in the discharge of the functions of the Official Liquidator; that there is no reason why a precedent of absorption on 1.7.1978 should not be adopted in the case of the Company Paid Staff, who were under `the expectation that their services would also be regularised in due course and that in the course of the judgment the learned Judges have observed that during the pendency of the petition the Court by an order dated 24.9.1991 had expressed the hope that considering the human problem involved the authorities to take a practical view of the matter and take a step similar to that was taken in the year 1978, so that justice could be meted out to the Company Paid Staff, many of whom were in service for more than a decade. The learned Judges, after referring to the answers given by the concerned authorities, found that the stand of the first respondent before them in not considering the claim of the Company Paid Staff for regularisation was unfair and was not justifiable in the circumstances and especially in view of the precedent of regularising the services of similarly situated employees in the year 1978. The learned Judges further observed that the Company Paid Staff also deserved similar treatment as meted out to the similarly situated employees in the year 1978 and, therefore, were entitled to regularisation of their services in the establishment of the Official Liquidator. Ultimately, the learned Judges allowed the petition and directed the appellants herein to absorb Company Paid Staff as regular Lower Division Clerks in the Office of the Official Liquidator with effect from their respective dates of appointments as Estate Clerks. There was a further direction given by the Court to grant benefits of pay fixation and all admissible allowances to the Company Paid Staff. The arrears of salary and other allowances due to them on such regularisation shall be computed and paid without delay. There was a further direction to reckon the arrears from the date of the original petition.Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellants have preferred this appeal.appeal.5. Let us now give the facts in Civil Appeal No. 5677/94. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 27.8.1993 of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 9732 ofe contesting respondents, who were the petitioners in the High Court, were working as Estate Clerks, otherwise known as Company Paid Staff (hereinafter referred to as `Company Paid Staff), in the Office of the Official Liquidator, High Court of Kerala. It is not in dispute that the said Company Paid Staff were working in the Office of the Official Liquidator continuously and without any break for years together. They were appointed by the Official Liquidator pursuant to the orders of the High Court under Rules 308 and 309 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. It is also common ground that the Company Paid Staff had been discharging their duties and functions identical to those of the staff employed by the Central Government in the Office of the Official Liquidator. The Company Paid Staff moved the High Court seeking absorption on a regular basis. They brought to the notice of the Court that on an earlier occasion on 1.7.1978 similarly situated Company Paid Staff were absorbed as regularly paid staff.6. The petition was opposed by the appellants (respondents before the High Court) contending that the Company Paid Staff were not employed by the Government; that their employment was of casual nature; that they were paid out of the funds of the Companies in liquidation and not from the Consolidated fund of India; that such appointments were made by the Official Liquidator to meet administrative exigencies to discharge the functions entrusted to him as Official Liquidator and that, therefore, they cannot claim regularisation or absorption in the Government service.7. The High Court, on the basis of the pleadings and arguments raised before it, considered two questions, namely, (a) whether the continuous employment of petitioners enables them to claim regularisation in service and other benefits; (b) whether the principle of `equal pay for equal work applies to them. The learned Judges, after referring to a number of decisions of this Court, found that the Company Paid Staff were appointed according to law and by a qualified Central Government functionary and that their appointments were regular and proper; that they had been in employment for periods ranging from five to ten years; that it has not been pointed out that any of the Company Paid Staff is unsuitable for the post now held by him; that the respondents (appellants herein) have not made out any case that the services of the Company Paid Staff are no longer required in the discharge of the functions of the Official Liquidator; that there is no reason why a precedent of absorption on 1.7.1978 should not be adopted in the case of the Company Paid Staff, who were under `the expectation that their services would also be regularised in due course and that in the course of the judgment the learned Judges have observed that during the pendency of the petition the Court by an order dated 24.9.1991 had expressed the hope that considering the human problem involved the authorities to take a practical view of the matter and take a step similar to that was taken in the year 1978, so that justice could be meted out to the Company Paid Staff, many of whom were in service for more than a decade. The learned Judges, after referring to the answers given by the concerned authorities, found that the stand of the first respondent before them in not considering the claim of the Company Paid Staff for regularisation was unfair and was not justifiable in the circumstances and especially in view of the precedent of regularising the services of similarly situated employees in the year 1978. The learned Judges further observed that the Company Paid Staff also deserved similar treatment as meted out to the similarly situated employees in the year 1978 and, therefore, were entitled to regularisation of their services in the establishment of the Official Liquidator. Ultimately, the learned Judges allowed the petition and directed the appellants herein to absorb Company Paid Staff as regular Lower Division Clerks in the Office of the Official Liquidator with effect from their respective dates of appointments as Estate Clerks. There was a further direction given by the Court to grant benefits of pay fixation and all admissible allowances to the Company Paid Staff. The arrears of salary and other allowances due to them on such regularisation shall be computed and paid without delay. There was a further direction to reckon the arrears from the date of the original petition.Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

Reasoning:
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.