9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. We have to read Uma Devi s case (supra) in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution, and we cannot read it in a manner which will make it in conflict with Article 14. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any judgment, not even of the Supreme Court, can violate the Constitution. In the present case many of the writ petitioners have been working from 1985 i.e. they have put in about 22 years service and it will surely not be reasonable if their claim for regularization is denied even after such a long period of service. Hence apart from discrimination, Article 14 of the Constitution will also be violated on the ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness if employees who have put in such a long service are denied the benefit of regularization and are made to face the same selection which fresh recruits have to face. Thus, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. - A.K. Mathur And Markandey Katju., JJ. ORDER A.K. Mathur., J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 3.1.2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge. 9. The writ petitioners who were daily wagers in the service of the Society were appointed in the Society before 4.5.1990 and their services were taken over by the Electricity Board in the same manner and position . In our opinion, this would mean that their services in the Society cannot be ignored for considering them for the benefit of the order dated 28.11.1996. 10. In our opinion, the proceeding dated 3.4.1997 makes it clear that the employees of the Society should be deemed to be the employees of the Electricity Board with continuity of their service in the Society, and it is not that they would be treated as fresh appointees by the Electricity Board when their services were taken over by the Electricity Board. In this view of the matter, the writ petitioners (respondents herein) are entitled to the benefit of the order of the Electricity Board dated 28.11.1996. This view also finds support from the affidavit of Shri Ramapati Dubey, Chief Engineer, R.P.M.O., U.P. State Electricity Board in which it is mentioned that In this way, the Board Order dated 28.11.1996, a copy of which has been filed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2003) 2 SCC 111 (vide para 59), this Court observed:- It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. 15. As held in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. another vs. N.R.Vairamani another (AIR 2004 SC 4778), a decision cannot be relied on without disclosing the factual situation. In the same Judgment this Court also observed:- Court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid`s theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of the context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icular case. As observed by this Court in Bhavnagar University (supra) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra), a little difference in facts or even one additional fact may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. Hence, in our opinion, Uma Devi s case (supra) cannot be applied mechanically without seeing the facts of a particular case, as a little difference in facts can make Uma Devi s case (supra) inapplicable to the facts of that case. 17. In the present case the writ petitioners (respondents herein) only wish that they should not be discriminated against vis-`-vis the original employees of the Electricity Board since they have been taken over by the Electricity Board in the same manner and position . Thus, the writ petitioners have to be deemed to have been appointed in the service of the Electricity Board from the date of their original appointments in the Society. Since they were all appointed in the society before 4.5.1990 they cannot be denied the benefit of the decision of the Electricity Board dated 28.11.1996 permitting regularization of the employees of the Electricity Board who were working from before 4.5.1990. To take a contrary view w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
