Case Note & Summary
The case involves a challenge to an order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing an application for recall of an order dated 06.12.2017, which had dismissed a Review Application in default. The respondent, Lakshmi Chandra, a daily wager, had initially filed a writ petition in 1992 seeking regularisation and minimum pay scale. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the judgment in State of U.P. vs. Putti Lal, which held that daily wagers are entitled to minimum pay scale but not allowances or increments. Subsequently, the respondent filed another writ petition in 2004, which was disposed of on 23.10.2008 with directions to consider his case for regularisation under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001. The appellants rejected the claim on 19.11.2008, stating that the respondent was not continuously employed and citing the Supreme Court's decision in Uma Devi. Instead of challenging this rejection, the respondent filed a Contempt Application in 2009, alleging non-compliance of the 2008 order. The High Court issued notices and passed several orders, including directing the preparation of eligibility and seniority lists. The appellants challenged these orders in a Special Appeal, which was dismissed. The matter reached the Supreme Court, which in Deputy Director, Social Forestry Division vs. Lakshmi Chandra directed compliance and payment of wages. The High Court thereafter passed an order on 30.03.2016 stating that the department could not deny minimum pay scale. The appellants filed a Special Appeal, which was dismissed with liberty to approach the Supreme Court for clarification. The appellants filed an IA in the Supreme Court, which was withdrawn, and then filed a Special Leave Petition, which was also withdrawn with liberty to file a review petition before the High Court. The review petition was dismissed in default on 06.12.2017, and the application for recall was dismissed on 16.02.2018. The Supreme Court, in the present appeal, dismissed the challenge, holding that the High Court's order did not warrant interference as the contempt proceedings had been pending for a long time and the appellants had alternative remedies.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Recall of Dismissal Order - Review Application Dismissed in Default - The High Court dismissed the application for recall of the order dismissing the review application in default, which was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was not interfered with as the appellants had alternative remedies and the contempt proceedings were pending for a long time. (Paras 1-12) B) Service Law - Regularisation of Daily Wagers - Minimum Pay Scale - Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 - The respondent, a daily wager, sought regularisation and minimum pay scale. The High Court directed consideration under the Rules. The appellants rejected the claim citing lack of continuous service and the Supreme Court's decision in Uma Devi. The Supreme Court in earlier proceedings directed compliance and payment of minimum pay scale. (Paras 3-8) C) Civil Procedure - Recall of Order - Dismissal in Default - The appellants sought recall of the order dismissing the review application in default. The High Court dismissed the recall application. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, noting that the appellants had not shown sufficient cause and the contempt proceedings had been pending for a long time. (Paras 1-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the application for recall of the order dismissing the review application in default, in the context of contempt proceedings for non-compliance of directions regarding regularisation and minimum pay scale of daily wagers.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's order dated 16.02.2018 dismissing the application for recall of the order dated 06.12.2017 dismissing the Review Application in default. The Court held that no interference was warranted as the contempt proceedings had been pending for a long time and the appellants had alternative remedies.
Law Points
- Recall of dismissal order
- Contempt of court
- Regularisation of daily wagers
- Minimum pay scale
- Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules
- 2001
