evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

HlRALAL AND ORS.

JANUARY 15, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

Compensation-Held, claimants not entitled to the benefit of the provisions qf the Act as amended by Act 68 qf 1984--lnstead they are entitled to C solatium at 15% aiul interest at 6% 011 the enhanced compensation.from the date of taking possession till date of deposit.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2414 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order Dated 13.11.87 of the Madhya Pradesh

. D High Court in Civil Miscellaneous No. 45 of 1974.

Sakesh Kumar and S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellant.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

In view of the office report, it would be clear that the respondents E obviously managed to have the notice returned with postal remarks "not available in the house", "House locked" and "shop closed" respectively. In that view, it must be deemed that the notices have been served on the respondents.

Leave granted.

The controversy raised in this case is covered by an order of this Court dated August 2, 1995 made in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 9048 of 1988. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and following the judgment passed by this Court, we held that the respondents are not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by Act 68 of 1984. Instead, they are entitled to solatium at 15% and interest G at 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till date of deposit.

The appeal is accordingly allowed but, in the circumstances without costs.

G.N.

Appeal allowed

...
) !

IMPROVEMENT TRUST, SANGRUR v.

GURJJT SINGH SANDHU AND ORS.

JANUARY 15, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Land Acqui; ition Act, 1894 :

S. 23( lA)--Additional amount-Entitlemel!l-Notification and award prior to amending Act 68 of 1984-Hence claimants not entitled to additional amount.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2618 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.7.93 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in LP.A. No. 9 of 1991.

S.C. Patel for the Appellant.

K.R. Rajesekaran Pillai for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Mr. K.R.R. Pillai, learned counsel, is appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 14 to 18. Notice had been sent on 29.3.1994 to respondent Nos.

I, 3, 4 and 7 to 13, but till date they have not appeared either in person or through their counsel. Acknowledgements have not been received. Therefore, F they must be deemed to have been served. 2nd respondent was served on 31.3.1994. He is not appearing either in person or through his counsel.

The controversy is whether the respondents are entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984. The Collector's award is dated September 10, 1979 while G the notification under Section 4(1) was published on January 28, 1978. Under these circumstances, the respondents are not entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act.

The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. No costs

G.N.

Appeal allowed, H 487
A ·

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THROUGH

THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURE TO THE GOVT. OF

HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ·

NODHA RAM AND ORS.

JANUARY 3, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950:

C Articles 226, I 36--Daily wagers on muster roll--Paid from funds provided by Central Government--Project completed and closed due to non-availability offunds-&rvices dispensed with-Writ Petition-High Court ordering re-engagement of the employees-On appeal held: no vested right is created on temporary employment-Non-availability of vacancies--Courts to D adopt pragmatic approach-Regularisation/Creation of posts cannot be directed--Service Law-Regularisation.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1539of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.92 of the Himachal Pradesh E High Court in C.W.P. No. 860 of 1992.

Naresh K. Sharma for the Appellant.

Uma Datta for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered:

Leave granted.

Heard Counsel on both sides.

The facts are that the respondents were engaged on daily wages on muster roll basis in Central Scheme and were paid out of the funds provided by the Central Government. It is stated that after the Scheme was closed their services were dispensed with. When the respondents filed the writ petition in the High Court, the High Court gave interim directi.on on November 18, 1992 and directed their re-engagement elsewhere. Against the aforesaid interim direction, this appeal by special leave has heen filed.

STATE OF H.P. v. NODHA RAM SS

It is seen that when the project is completed and closed due to nonavailability of funds, the employees have to go along with its closure. The High Court was not right in giving the direction to regularise them or to continue them in other places. No vested right is created in temporary employment. Directions cann_ot be given to regularise their services in the absence of any existing vacancies nor can directions be given to the State to create posts in a non-existnt establislunent. The Court would adopt pragn1atic approach in giving directions. !he directions would amount to creating of posts and continuing them despite non-availability of the work. We are of the considered view that the directions issued by the High Court are absolutely illegal warranting our interference. The order of the High Court is, therefore, set side.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

G.N.

Appeal allowed.
. -(

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THROUGH

THE SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE GOVT. OF ,.

HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

ASHWANI KUMAR AND ORS.

JANUARY 3, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950: c Articles 226, 136-Daily wagers on muster roll--l'aidfromfunds provided by Central Government project completed and closed due to non-availability of funds-Services dispensed with-Writ Petition-High Court ordering re-engagement <if the employees-On appeal held: no vested right is ereated on temporary employment-Non-availability of vacancies-Courts to

D adopt pragmatic approach-Regularisation/Creation of posts cannot be direcied--Service Law-Regularisation.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1538of1996.

From the Judgment and Order daled 9.3.93 of the Himachal Pradesh

E High Court in C. WP. No. 18 of 1992.

B. Dutta and Naresh K. Sharma for the appellant.

Devendra Singh for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : 'r F Leave granted.

Heard Counsel on both sides.

The facts are that the respondent was engaged on daily wages on muster roll basis in Central Scheme and were paid out of the funds provided by the G Central Government. It is stated that after the scheme was closed their services were dispensed with. When the respondents filed the writ petition in the High Court, the High Court gave interim direction dated 6th January, 1993 and directed them to be re-engaged else where, Pursuant to the interim direction the writ petition came to be disposed of on March 9, 1993. Thus this appeal by H special leave.

""·

STATE Or H.P. v. ASHWANI KUMAR 57

It is seen that when the project is completed and closed due to non- A availability of funds, consequently, the employees have to go along with the Closed project. The High Court was not right in giving the direction to regularise them or to continue them in other places. No vested right is created in temporary employment. Directions cannot be given to regularise their services in the absence of any existing vacancies nor directions be gi vcn to create posts by the State to a non-existent establishment. The Court would adopt pragmatic approach in giving directions. The directions would amount to creating of posts and continuing them in spite of non-availability of the work. We are of considered view that the directions issued by the High Court are absolutely illegal warranting our interference. The order of the High Court is set side.

The appeal is allowed. No Costs.

G.N.

Appeals allowed.
KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

P.S. RAMAKRISHNA

JANUARY 17, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]

Se1vice Law :

Order of the Tribwtal-Set aside in view of the law laid down by C Supreme Cowt and as the matter is covered by the decision.

Kamataka Public Se1vice Commission & Ors. v. B.M. Vijay Shanker & Ors., [1992] 2 SCC 206, held applicable.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2413 of

D 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.90 of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore in A No. 6612 of 1990.

M. Veerappa for the Appellant.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Though the notice was sent to the respondent on September 28, 1993, it came back with an endorsement "Not present. Hence return to sender".

It would be obvious that the respondent is avoiding service. Notice must, F therefore, be deemed to have been on the respondent.

Leave granted.

The controversy raised in this case is covered by the decision of this Court in Kamataka Public Se1vice Commission & Ors. v. B.M. Vijaya G Shanker & Ors., [1992] 2 sec 206.

Following the said decision, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside, but without costs.

G.N.

Appeal allowed.
• ;.

" •

SH. S.V. BHIMA BHATIA AND ANR. ETC. v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JANUARY 18, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.j

Service Law :

Pensio11-Fluctuation in the age of superammativ11-Se1vice beyond the nom1al period of superannuation--Entitleme11t to pensio1t-Taki1•g into account the residue period-QuestiOll left Opell as no notice was issued 011 the mattei-State not entitled to recorer pension already paid calculated on the basis of the actual date of superannuation thereby including the residite period-State free to ftx the pension according to nt/eo.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2836-37 of 1996 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.93 of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Bangalore in A. No. 1412 of 1991.

S.R. Bhat for the Appellants.

K.R. Nagraja for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

SLP (C) No. 20571/93 taken on Board.

We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.

Leave granted.

Shri S.R. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that during the period of fluctuation of superannuation of the Govrnmeni servants betwee.t 55 and 58 years and continuation upto 60 years, the Government ultimately had enhanced superannuation to 58 years with liberty in public interest to appoint for further period upto 60 years the persons who continued in service beyond the normal period of superannuation are also entitled to the pension on the basis of scale of ::iay drawn

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1996] 1 S.C.R.

A by them on the date of their superannuation, i.e., 60 years and the pension should be computed accordingly including the period of 3 years during which they had continued in service. On the other hand, Shri Nagaraja, learned counsel for the State, contended that the right of the Government to superannuate the employee in exercise of the statutory power was

B upheld by this Court. The payment of pension requires to be decided on the date on which the employee is required to retire and the residue period would be treated as fortuitous. We need not decide this question in view of the fact that this Court, while issuing notice, has expressly limited to the question as to right of the State to recover the pension already paid to them. Shri Nagaraja has fairly stated that the State has no objection and C the State would not recover the pension already paid to them; the notice is limited only to that extent. We hold that the State is not entitled to recover the pension already paid to them computing the pension as if the respondents retired at the age of 60 years. The larger question is left open since that is not the matter on which the notice was issued. Consequently, D the State is free to fix the pension according to rules.

The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

G.N.

Appeals disposed of.

•· .
GURBACHAN SINGH AND ANR. v.

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

FEBRUARY 9, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950 :

A1ticles 32, 136-Special Leave Petition-Judgment and order passed C thereon-Whether amenable to judicial review under Art. 32--Held : No.

Abdul Rehman Antulay v. Union of India & Ors. Etc., (1984) 3 SCR 482; Khoday Distilleries Limited & Anr. v. The Registrar General $upreme Court of India., W.P.(C) No. 803 of (1995) andM/S. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Kamataka & Ors., [1995) 1 SCC 574, relied on.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 782 of 1994.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

E Ms. Nanita Sharma for R.C. Gubrele for the Petitioners.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

The writ petition is filed against the order passed by this Court under Article 136 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High F Court and arbitrator awarding enhanced solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1864 as amended by Amendment Act 68 of 1984 in respect of lands acquired under Requisition and Acquisition of the Immovable Property Act, 1952. A three-Judge Bench of this Court had held that the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 or the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has no G application to the award passed under Section 8 of the Requisition and Acquisition of the Immovable Property Act. Consequently, the direction and order for the payment of interest and solatium was held to be without jurisdiction and, therefore, it would be nullity. The question then is whether writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution would lie ?

H Dealing with the same question in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. Union

. /

GURBACHAN SINGH v. U.O.I. 401

of India & Ors. Etc., [1984) 3 SCR 482 this Court had observed thus :

"In my view, the writ petition challenging the validity of the order and judgment passed by this Court as nullity or otherwise incorrect cannot be entertained. I wish to make it clear that the dismissal of

this writ petition will not prejudice the right of the petitioner, to approach the Court with an appropriate review petition or to file B any other application which he may be entitled in law to file".

Following the above ratio, in Klwday Distille1ies Limited & Anr. v.

The Registrar General, Supreme Cowt of India, W.P. (C) No. 803 of (1995) decided on December 5, 1995, a three-Judge Bench (to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy, J. was a member) has held that after the decision of this Court in Mis. Kltoday Distilleries Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Kamataka & Ors., [1995) 1 SCC 574 writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution canvassing the correctness of the decision of this Court, is not maintainable.

Thus the judgement and order of this Court passed under Article D 136 is not amenable to judicial review under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

G.N.

Petition dismissed.
UNION OF INDIA

MIS. AGRO ENGINEERING (MP). PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 9, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)

Subsidy-Grant of-{]nder the scheme-Applications made on or before September 30, 1988 substantially complying with the requirements enumerated

in the guidelines issued by Govemment of India-To be considered and disposed of for granting subsidy as per scheme-Matter remitted to the Govem- C ment-The Committee constituted in that behalf to examine and dispose it of in the light of the law aid down by Supreme Court in :

Union of India v. Aarbee Pipe & Profiles & Ors., dated February 1, 1996; Umesh Textile & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., dated December 5, 1995 and State of M.P. v. Agro Engineering (MP) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., dated D November 1, 1995.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3625 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.7.94 of the Madhya Pradesh E High Court in M.P. No. 1435 of 1990.

K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General, A.S. Rawat and D.S.

Mehra for the Appellants.

A.K. Sanghi, N.K. Dabe and Diwakar Chaturvedi for the Respon- F dents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Delay Condoned.

Leave granted.

There are three orders passed by this Court : in Union of India v.

Aarbee Pipe & Profiles & Ors., dated February 1, 1996 by a Bench of three Judges ; Umesh Textile & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., dated December

5, 1995 by a Bench of two Judges and State of M.P. v. Agro Engineering H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1996] 2 S.C.R.

A (MP) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., dated November 1, 1995 by a Bench of two Judges.

The substratum of the directions in all those cases is that if the applications are made on or before September 30, 1988 substantially complyingwith the requirements enumerated in the guidelines issued by the Government of India, they would be considered and disposed of for granting subsidy as per the scheme. The same should be the order in this case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The matter is remitted to the Government and the Committee constituted in that behalf would examine the case and dispose it pf in the light of the law laid down by this Court. No costs.

G.N.

Appeal disposed of.

~ ,)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v.

MIS. KALY AN SUNDARAM CEMENT

INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 12, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Negotiable Instrnments Act, 1881/Jndian Penal Code, 1860 :

Section 138/420-Bouncing of cheques-Suits filed for recove1y- C Criminal proceedings also initiated-High Court staying proceedings of the civil suits pending disposal of criminal cases-Held: Pendency of criminal matters not an impediment to proceed with civil suits-Hence the principle adopted by the High Court not correct.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3644 of D 1996.

From the Judgment and order dated 16.11.94 of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 209 of 1994.

Aruneshwar Gupta, Manoj K. Das and , Ms. Namita Narula for the E Appellant.

Arun Jaitely, D.A. Dave, Bhaskar Pradhan, Ms. Ruby Ahuja, Mrs.

M. Karanjawala , S.S. Kha, nduja, B.K. Satija and Y.P. Dhingra, for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Leave granted.

This appeal by Special leave arises from the order of the learned single Judge made in Civil Revision No. 209/94 on 16.11.1994 of the High G Court of Rajasthan. Admittedly, the respondent-Company after inviting tenders had executed an agreement on 13.4.1969 for execution of the project. Thereafter, three post dated cheques of dates between May and July 1989 were given for a sum of Rs. 6, 87, 100 each of which got bounced.

After issuing said notice, the suits were filed for recovery. Simultaneously H 463

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1996] 2 S.C.R.

A proceedings were initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable instrument Act and also under Section 420 IPC in three complaints, CC Nos. 219, 220 and 254 of 1989. The High Court stayed the proceedings of the civil suits pending disposal of the criminal cases. This appeal came to be filed against the said order.

B It is settled law that pendency of the criminal matters would not be an impediment to proceed with the civil suits. The criminal court would deal with offence punishable under the Act. On the Other hand, the courts rarely stay the criminal cases and only when the compelling circumstances require the exercise of their power. We have never come across stay of any C civil suit by the courts so far. The High Court of Rajasthan is only an exception to pass such orders. The High Court proceeded on wrong premise that the accused would be expected to disclose their defence in the criminal case by asking them to proceed with the trial of the suit. It is not a correct principle of law. Even otherwise it no longer subsists, since many of them have filed their defences in the civil suit. On principle of law, D we hold that the approach adopted by the High Court is not correct. But since the defence has already been filed nothing survives in this mater.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside. No costs.

G.N.

Appeal Allowed.

~ )
, ,,/

STATE OF KERALA A v.

GEORGE JOSEPH

FEBRUARY 12, 1996

(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

Section 4(1) and 23(1A)-Award dated March 27, 1981-Notificatio'! unda s.4( 1) earlier in point of tirn<--Hence party not entitled to payment of C additional amount under Section 23( JA).

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3649-50 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.7.94 of the Kerala High D Court in L.A.A. No. 112 and 119 of 1985.

M.T. George for the Appellant.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Though notice was issued to the respondent, no unserved acknow- E ledgment has been received so far. Therefore, notice must be deemed to have been served on the respondent.

Leave granted.

The point in the case is no longer res integra. The award of the Collector is dated March 27, 1981 and the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is of September 26, 1978. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to the payment of the additional amount under Section 23(1A) of that Act.

The appeals are accordingly allowed. The award to the above extent is set aside. No costs.

G.N.

Appeals allowed.
SH. MAHESHWARI SENIOR HIGHER SECONDARY

SCHOOL AND ANR. v.

BHIKHA RAM SHARMA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 12, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)

Se1Vice Law :

C Appointment on ad hoc basis-Abolition of the post-Subsequent termination of se1Vice-Tribunal and High Court holding tennination not in accordance with Rules-Held, on abolition of post, holder of post ceases to continue from date of abolition of post-Hence tennination valid-Question of conducting enquiry under Rules does not arise.

D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3645 of 1996.

From the Judgment. and Order dated 29.8.95 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.C.S.A. (Writ) No. 482 of 1995.

E M.C. Bhandare, Vipin Gogia, Sushil K. Jain and AP. Damija for the

Appellants.

Rajesh Srivastava, Ujjwal Banerjee, H.K. Puri and S.P. Lenka, for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted ..

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Rajasthan High Court made in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 492/95. The short G question is: whether the respondent can be permitted to continue in a post that stands abolished? It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed as Steno-Typist on ad hoc basis w.e.f. July 15, 1992. While he was continuing, the Management had passed. a Resolution on May 21, 1994 stating that there was no necessity to continue the ad hoc post of Steno- H typist. Consequently," the post stood abolished. Thereafter, the impugned 466

f \

MAHESHWARI SR. HR. SEC. SCHOOL v. B.R. SHARMA 467

order was passed on May 31, 1994 terminating the service. When the A appellants had proceeded to the Tribunal and then to the High Court, the High Court came to the conclusion that termination is not according to rules and directed to conduct an enquiry according to Rules and to take a decision. The approach adopted by the High Court is wholly erroneous. It is settled law that on abolition of the post, the existing holder of the post ceases to continue from the date of abolition of the post. Since the termination of the service of the respondent is only due to abolition of the post, the question of conducting the enquiry under Rules does not arise.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

G.N.

Appeal allowed.