STATE OF U P THR. ITS SECRETARY & ORS v. MERAJ AHMAD

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dipak Misra
A. M. Khanwilkar
D. Y. Chandrachud
Judgment Date: 2017-09-07
Court Decision / Holding: We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 18 May 2016. The direction to grant continuity of service to the respondent from the date of the termination order dated 9 April 1984 shall stand set aside. The appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Uttar Pradesh through its Secretary & ors

Respondents

Meraj Ahmad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Samir Ali Khan
• Sohaib Alam
• Amit Singh

Counsels for Respondents

• Mohd. Parvez Dabas
• Shakil Ahmed Syed
• Uzmi Jameel Hussain

Case Synopsis & Summary

The case concerns a termination dispute involving a UP employee who had been appointed temporarily as a Livestock Development Assistant in 1983. After an FIR under Section 302 IPC was filed in April 1984, his services were terminated. He was acquitted in October 1985. In February 1989 he sought fresh appointment, stating he would forgo claims to his past service, and in April 1989 he was reappointed as Livestock Extension Inspector on the condition that he would not be entitled to the benefit of past service. He pursued writ petitions challenging his termination; the 1998 Single Judge directed reinstatement if the sole ground of termination was the trial, while the 2013 petition granted continuity of service but denied salary for the period not worked. The Division Bench affirmed the continuity order. The Supreme Court held that the respondent, by unequivocally undertaking to forgo past service while seeking fresh appointment, could not challenge the termination on the basis of past service; consequently the direction to grant continuity from the date of termination was set aside. The appeal was allowed and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court was reversed; there was no ordering of costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 302 of the Indian Penal CodeFirst Information Report under Section 302 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants submit that the Division Bench erred by proceeding on the basis that the respondent withdrew his unequivocal undertaking to forgo past service while seeking fresh appointment. Having requested appointment as a fresh candidate and accepted an appointment subject to the non-entitlement to past service, the respondent could not challenge the consequences of that arrangement. Once termination was accepted and a fresh appointment sought with the undertaking to give up past service, the challenge to termination was not open. The appellant contends that the High Court erred in directing continuity of service from the date of termination and that such continuity cannot be granted given the unequivocal undertaking.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends that the past-service benefit was rightly granted by the Single Judge and Division Bench, given the prior acquittal and subsequent actions; the undertaking to forgo past service was conditional and potentially superseded by the acquittal, and hence the continuity entitlement should stand. The respondent argues that reinstatement or continuity should be considered in light of the earlier writ petitions and the acquittal.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2017] 8 S.C.R. 649 ~ ~. !' 1 l :I .! STATE OF U P THR. ITS SECRETARY & ORS A v. · MERAJ AHMAD (Civil Appeal No. 9335 of 2016) B SEPTEMBER 07, 2017 **(DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ,)** \ c _Service Law:_ _Continuity of service_ - _Claim for_ - _Original appointment on temporary basis_ - _Termination ofservice in view of FIR uls. 302 /PC against the employee_ - _-On acquittal uls. 302 /PC, .employee .sought appointment as a fresh candidate_ - _Fresh appointment given_ D _subject to specific condition that he would not be entitled to the benefit of past service_ - _Writ petition by employee_ - _Single Judge of High Court granted benefit of continuity of service setting aside termination order_ - _Division Bench upheld order of Single Judge_ - _On appeal, neld: High Court erred in terminating challenge to the termination order_ - _Such challenge was not open to the employee_ E _once he had accepted his termination and sough fresh appointment by undertaking to give up any claim in connection with his past service_ - _The direction to grant continuity of service from the date of termination order, set aside_ - _Appeal disposed._ F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.9335 of2016. From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow .in Special Appeal No.406 of2014. G Samir Ali Khan, Sohaib, Alam, Amit Singh, Advs. for the Appellants. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Shakil Ahmed Syed, Uzmi Jameel Hussain, Advs. for the Respondents. 649 \ ,, 650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 8 S.C.R. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A **DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.** I. On 8 July, 1983, the respondent was appointed on a temporary basis as a Livestock Development Assistant by the Deputy Director, Livestock in the State ofU Pin the pay scale of Rs 400-10-450-12-474-xxxx-12-570-15-615/B . The order of appointment stipulated that the services of the respondent could be terminated with a notice of one month. On 2 April 1984 a First Information Report was registered against the respondent _inter a/ia_ under Section 302 of the Penal Code. On 9 April 1984, the Deputy Director in the Animal Husbandry Department at Faizabad terminated the services of the respondent. c 2. The respondent was tried on a charge of murder in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur in Sessions Trial l 02 of 1984. By a judgment dated 11 October 1985 the Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur acquitted the respondent and his co-accused by giving them the benefit of doubt. Following his acquittal, the respondent by a letter D dated 7 February 1989 sought fresh appointment as a Livestock Development Assistant and stated that he shall make no claim in connection with his prior service. On 17 April 1989, the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Faizabad appointed the respondent as Livestock Extension Inspector on the condition that he would not be entitled to the E benefit of his prior service. 3. In the meantime, the respondent had filed a writ petition, WP 8550 of 1987 before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. On 4 September 1998 a Single Judge oftheAllahabad High Cotu1 directed that the respondent shall be taken back in service if the only ground for _F_ termination was his being put up for trial on a charge of murder, provided there was no other impediment in allowing him to join service. 4. The respondent filed another writ petition (WP (sis) 5499 of l 999)to seek the benefit of continuity in service.A counter affidavit was filed in response to the writ petition by the Veterinary Officer, District G Sultanpur stating that the respondent had been appointed to the post of Livestock Extension Inspector on his own request, and that he had agreed toforego the benefit of his past employment. A learned Single Judge by a judgment dated 14 May2013 allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order of termination dated 9 April 1984. The Single Judge directed, however, that the respondent would not be entitled to salary for the H STATE OF UP THR. ITS SECRETARY & ORS v. MERAJ 651 AHMAD [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.] period for which he had not worked. The respondent was held to be A entitled to continuity of service. The judgment of the Single Judge was upheld in a Special Appeal by a Division Bench of the High Court on 18 -May2016. 5. The State ofUttar Pradesh is in appeal against the judgment. Leave was granted on 16 September 2016 and an interim suspension of B the operation of the judgment of the High Court was ordered.An application for early hearing was filed on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on behalfofthe appellants and the respondent, we have taken up the appeal for final hearing. 6. The submissi_on which has been urged on behalf of the c appellantsis that the Division Bench of the High Court has erroneously proceeded on the basis that the respondent had withdrawn his undertaking, agreeing to forego the benefit of his past services. It was urged that the respondent, by his unequivocal request dated 7 February 1989, sought appointment as a fresh candidate. Having been appointed on that basis, it was not open to the respondent to resile from the D consequence which would emerge from the acceptance of his request. On the other hand, it was urged on behalf of the respondent that both the 'learned Single Judge and, in appeal, the Division Bench justifiably granted the benefit of his past service to the respondent. 7. The original appointment of the respondent as a Livestock E Development Assistant was purely temporary in nature. His services were dispensed with on 9 April 1984, a week after an FIR was lodged against him on 2 April 1984 alleging his involvement in an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code. In the Sessions trial, the respondent was given the benefit of doubt by the Additional Sessions Judge. After his F . acquittal on 11 October 1985, the respondent consciously sought appointment as a fresh candidate and stated that he would not make any claim in connection with his prior service. It was on that basis that by a communication dated 17 April 1989, he was appointed as a Livestock Extension Inspector subject to the specific condition that he would not be entitled to the benefit of past service. In a writ petition of 1987, the G learned Single Judge directed on 4 September 1998 that if the only ground of termination was that the respondent had been tried on a charge of ·murder, he shall be taken back in service, provided there was no other impediment in allowing him to join service. The respondent filed another writ petition in 1989. The learned Single Judge was manifestly in error H G 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 8 S.C.R. - A in entertaining a challenge to the order of termination dated 9 April 1984. Such a challenge was not open to the respondent and could nothave been entertained once he had accepted his tennination and sought fresh appointment on 7 February 1989 by undertaking to give up any claim in connection with his past service. In the face of the unequivocal - B undertaking of the respondent, the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition and in setting aside the order of tennination. The Division Bench, in the special appeal,was in error in affirming the order of the Single Judge. 8. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 18 May 2016. C The direction to grant continuity of service to the respondent from the date of the order of tennination dated 9 April 1984 shall accordingly stand set aside. 9. The appeal is disposed of in the above tenns. There shall be no order as to costs. D Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal disposed of.