2003 (10) TMI 667 - SC - Indian Laws

Regularisation of services of the employees - Jurisdiction Of Contempt Court - Maintainability of appeals - HELD THAT - We find the argument to be fallacious. If a direction is given by a court without jurisdiction against such orders an appeal would lie to a court normally exercising the appellate jurisdiction. Secondly this ground loses importance in view of the fact that in some of the matters the authorities and the State have filed appeals directly against the order passed by the learned Judge disposing of contempt matter directing the authorities and the State Government to sanction the posts. No such direction could be given in contempt proceedings. It is immaterial as to whether those appeals have been dismissed on the ground of delay or on merits. The direction given by the learned Single Judge to consider the regularisation of the employees cannot be faulted with. Such an order was passed in view of the order of this Court passed on 6.2.1998 in the matter relating to another set of employees of the Corporation. There was hardly any ground on the basis of which interference could be made in the writ appeals preferred by the Corporation. Therefore the appeals which have been preferred against the order passed by the Division Bench in the writ appeals deserve to be dismissed. In the result the appeals which have been preferred against the order passed in the writ appeals viz. CAs Nos. 5451 5441 5452 5448 and 5453 of 2002 are dismissed and those against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in the contempt petition and the order of the Division Bench in appeals arising out of contempt matter viz. CAs Nos. 5442 5454 5447 5449 and 5450 of 2002 are allowed and the order of the Contempt Judge and the Division Bench in contempt appeals are set aside. We would however while parting with the matter particularly relating to appeals against the order passed by the High Court in writ appeals like to observe that all these employees seem to be working since a long time their regularisation could not be done as it is indicated that there are no sanctioned posts. Legalities and technicalities apart we feel that it would better serve the ends of justice if the State Government would consider the matter fairly and sympathetically and may like to take any appropriate decision in respect of these employees who are continuing since long. There would however be no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to regularisation of employees, contempt petition, jurisdiction of Contempt Court, maintainability of appeals, and dismissal of writ appeals.

Regularisation of Employees:
The employees of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes Finance Corporation sought regularisation in service following an order by the High Court. The order specified conditions for regularisation based on GOMs No. 212 dated 22.4.1994, including absorption against clear vacancies. However, their request was turned down as the posts they sought regularisation for were not sanctioned by the competent authority, leading to rejection of their request.

Contempt Petition and Jurisdiction:
Subsequently, the employees filed a contempt petition against the rejection of their regularisation request. The Contempt Judge directed the Government to sanction the necessary posts for regularisation, which was contested by the Corporation and the State Government in an appeal. The Division Bench noted that once a direction for regularisation was given, the Corporation had no option but to comply. However, it was argued that the Contempt Court had no jurisdiction to issue such directions, citing precedents that no substantive relief should be provided in contempt proceedings.

Maintainability of Appeals:
Various appeals were filed against the orders passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench. The Corporation and the State of Andhra Pradesh challenged the orders, with some appeals being directly filed in the Supreme Court under Article 136. The issue of maintainability of appeals against the Contempt Judge's order was raised, emphasizing that appeals could be filed against orders issued without jurisdiction.

Dismissal of Writ Appeals:
The writ appeals filed by the Corporation were dismissed mainly due to delay. The employees' counsel argued that the regularisation order was in line with the GOMs and the judgment of the Court. The appeals against the Division Bench's orders in the writ appeals were deemed meritless, as the direction for regularisation was based on previous Court orders.

In conclusion, the appeals against the writ appeals were dismissed, while those against the orders of the Single Judge in the contempt petition and the Division Bench in appeals arising from the contempt matter were allowed. The Court urged the State Government to consider the matter of employees' regularisation sympathetically despite legal constraints, emphasizing the need for a just decision.