2002 (2) TMI 1330 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Status of the appellants as employees of the State Government.
2. Application of Article 207 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956.
3. Delay and laches in filing the claim.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Status of the appellants as employees of the State Government:
The appellants sought recognition as employees of the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir, with the same rights, privileges, and benefits as other State employees. The High Court denied their claims, asserting that the appellants had voluntarily surrendered their status as Government servants in 1963 under Article 207 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956. The appellants were initially appointed as permanent Government servants and were serving in various capacities in industrial units managed by the Department of Commerce and Industries. In 1963, the State Government formed a Board of Directors to administer these units, and subsequently, the Jammu and Kashmir Industries Ltd. was incorporated to manage these undertakings. Despite the formation of the company, the appellants continued to work in their respective industrial units and enjoyed the same service benefits as other Government employees.

2. Application of Article 207 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956:
The High Court's reliance on Article 207 to determine the appellants' status was found to be erroneous. Article 207 deals with the conditions of grant of pension upon the abolition of a permanent post but does not itself provide for the procedure for abolition or the mode of appointment to another post. It was noted that there was no abolition of the Government posts held by the appellants, nor was there any exercise of option or surrender of status under Article 207. The High Court's assumption that the Government industrial undertakings were abolished with the formation of the Company was also incorrect. The instruction issued by the Governor in 1963 did not have statutory force to abolish the posts or transfer the undertakings to the Company. The appellants were not issued appointment letters by the Company, indicating that they remained Government servants and were entitled to be treated on par with other Government employees under Section 10 of the State Constitution and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

3. Delay and laches in filing the claim:
The High Court dismissed the appellants' claims on the grounds of delay and laches. However, the Supreme Court found that there was no delay or laches on the part of the appellants. The appellants were treated on par with other Government employees until the impugned orders based on the 1980 Wage Committee Report were issued. These orders were promptly challenged in 1981 before the Supreme Court and in 1982 before the High Court. The delay in the disposal of the case by the High Court could not be attributed to the appellants, making the dismissal on the grounds of delay and laches unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, recognizing the appellants as Government employees entitled to the same benefits as other State employees. The impugned orders denying such equality were quashed. The appeal was allowed, and the respondent-State was directed to pay costs to the appellants jointly assessed at Rs. 15,000.