Case Note & Summary
The matter before the Supreme Court of India, decided on 20 November 1995 by a bench comprising K. Ramaswamy and B.L. Hansaria, arose from a claim for regularisation of service by the appellant against the State of Haryana and others. The appellant had filed a special leave petition, which was granted after delay was condoned. The appellant relied upon an earlier order of the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) Nos.3099-3100 of 1985 and batch, contending that persons similarly situated to him had been taken into service and their services regularised pursuant to that order. The judgment does not set out the underlying factual background of the dispute beyond that. The Court observed that in view of the earlier order, persons similarly situated were admittedly taken into service and regularised. It accepted that the appellant was in the same position as those persons. The core legal issue was whether the appellant, being similarly situated to those already regularised, was entitled to the same relief. The appellant contended that he should be given the same benefit. The State's specific contentions are not recorded in the order. The Court reasoned that this was a special circumstance and held that the appellant was entitled to the same relief. However, it denied back-wages, while granting all other consequential benefits. The Court directed the respondents to take the appellant into service within four weeks of receipt of the order. Thus, the appeal was allowed. The decision reflects the principle that persons similarly situated should be treated alike in matters of regularisation, and the Court exercised its discretionary power to mould relief by denying back-wages. The citation for the judgment is 1996 SCC (7) 381; JT 1995 (8) 450; 1995 SCALE (6)696. The order was peremptory in nature, requiring compliance within a strict timeline. No statutory provision was cited in the order, and the Court relied solely on the binding effect of its earlier order in the batch of special leave petitions. The ruling underscores the consistency of judicial relief in similar factual matrices.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation of Service - Similarly Situated Entitled to Same Relief - No specific statute cited - The Supreme Court observed that in view of its earlier order in S.L.P.(C) Nos.3099-3100/85 & batch, similarly situated persons had been taken into service and regularised. The appellant, being in the same position, was held entitled to the same relief, though not to back-wages; the respondents were directed to take the appellant into service within four weeks. Held that special circumstances warranted equal treatment and all other consequential benefits except back-wages were allowed (Paras 1-1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, who is similarly situated to persons whose services were regularised under the Supreme Court's earlier order in S.L.P.(C) Nos.3099-3100/85 & batch, is entitled to the same relief of regularisation and consequential benefits, despite the delay in approaching the Court.
Final Decision
The appeal was allowed. The appellant was held entitled to the same relief as similarly situated persons regularised under the earlier order. The appellant was not entitled to back-wages but would get all other consequential benefits. The respondents were directed to take the appellant into service within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Delay condoned and leave granted
- similarly situated persons regularised under earlier order in SLP(C) Nos.3099-3100/85 & batch are entitled to same relief
- denial of back wages upheld
- all other consequential benefits allowed
- respondents directed to take appellant into service within four weeks
