AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J
Since, learned counsel for the respondents do not oppose the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeals, accordingly, the delay condonation applications (IA/2/2022 and IA/2/2022) are allowed and the delay in filing the appeals is condoned.
Since both the appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by learned Single Judge in two writ petitions (WPSS No.700/18 and 704/18) moved by the private respondents-writ petitioners, hence, these are being taken up together and decided by this common order.
Briefly put, facts of the case as averred, are that the respondents-petitioners were appointed with the appellant-establishment on 01.09.2001, 01.01.2002 and 15.02.2002 respectively. Considering the fact that the respondents-petitioners had already worked with the appellant for a decade, the Board held its meeting on 23.12.2016 and took a conscious decision for regularisation of services of the private respondents and for payment of minimum pay-scale to them, as admissible to the post of clerk i.e.Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.2000.
The above resolution of the Board was forwarded to the State authority for its approval. Consequently, resolution dated 23.12.2016 was approved on 30.12.2016.
After two years, the impugned decision, by virtue of which the benefits were extended to the respondents on 30.12.2016, was withdrawn vide the impugned order dated 07.04.2018 by the appellant-Board. Challenging the said decision, the writ petitioners knocked the door of this Court.
After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge came to this conclusion that the Board had no power to withdraw the benefits extended to the respondents, which was approved by the State authority on 30.12.2016, and, he, accordingly, quashed the Resolution passed by the Board on 16.02.2018. The learned Single Judge also directed that the matter of the respondents-petitioners be considered for regularisation of their services. Feeling aggrieved, these special appeals have been preferred by the appellant-Nagar Palika Parishad.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the respondents-petitioners were appointed on contractual basis, the Board was well within its powers to withdraw its earlier resolution. It is also argued that no posts of clerks were sanctioned by the State against which the respondents-petitioners were working. And lastly, the temporary pay-scale was granted to the respondents-petitioners in anticipation of creation of the posts.
Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondents argued that respondents have been working since 2001 with the appellant; they were discharging their duties effectively; there is nothing adverse against them; their service records are unblemished; and there is no illegality in the impugned order.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire records.
So far as granting of pay-scale to the respondents is concerned, the Board passed a resolution dated 23.12.2016 regarding the pay-scale, which was forwarded to the State authority. The State authority had already approved the recommendation on 30.12.2016. Since the State authority had already approved the recommendation of the appellant-Board passed on 23.12.2016, accordingly, the appellant-Board had no power to recall its earlier resolution dated 23.12.2016 by passing the subsequent resolution dated 16.02.2018 to the detriment of the respondents. They got vested with the right to receive the pay scale granted to them vide decision / approval dated 30.12.2016.
That apart, the subsequent resolution dated 16.02.2018 was never sent to State authority for its approval. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge rightly quashed the impugned Board's resolution dated 16.02.2018. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge regarding quashing of the resolution dated 16.02.2018.
So far as regularisation of services of the respondents is concerned, the learned Single Judge has issued a direction to the appellant to consider regularising services of the respondents.
From a perusal of the prayer clause of the writ petitions, it is clear that the respondents did not seek any relief regarding regularisation of their services. Since the petitioners did not seek any relief regarding regularisation of their services, as such, the learned Single Judge should not have issued a direction for regularisation of services of respondents-writ petitioners. The appellants have also disclosed that there were no sanctioned posts available. Therefore, there was no question of the services of the respondents being regularised. To this extent, the appeals are liable to be allowed.
In view of the above observations, we direct the appellant-Nagar Palika to pay the pay-scale to the respondents in pursuance to the Board's resolution dated 23.12.2016, and subsequent approval dated 30.12.2016.
So far as the direction issued by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order qua regularisation of services of the private respondents is concerned, we set aside the same in view of the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs.
The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of as such.