IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.6436 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.12351 of 2023)

STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. APPELLANTS

VERSUS

BALKISHUN RAM & ORS. RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. IA No.180545/2023 for substitution is allowed after condoning the delay. The abatement is set aside.

2. Cause title be amended accordingly.

3. Leave granted.

4. The State of Jharkhand and its Authorities are aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.03.2022 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand, whereby intra-Court appeal preferred by them against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 02.11.2020 passed in Writ Petition(s) No.7191/2013, has been dismissed.

5. As a consequence thereto, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to consider the claim of the respondents for appointment as Class-IV employees on the basis of the selection panel of 1992, stand upheld.

6. The undisputed facts are that pursuant to an advertisement inviting applications for appointment to Class-IV posts, the respondents applied and they were Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2023.11.02 09:59:24 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

declared successful in the selection process. Their names were included in the merit-panel prepared for appointment in different departments of the State Government against the posts shown in the district-wise vacancy-panel prepared in the year 1992.

7. It appears that several persons, who were placed below the respondents in the merit list, were given appointments after a long gap in the year 2006 without considering the claim of the respondents. It further appears that earlier in a batch of writ petitions disposed of by the High Court on 20.04.1999, the Deputy Commissioner(s) were directed to prepare a list of candidates, whose names were recommended for appointment in different offices, and thereafter, offer them appointment as per the available vacancies. The Authorities, however, did not appoint the respondents and some other candidates on two counts. Firstly, that the life of the panel had lapsed due to the passage of one year and secondly, there was no vacancy available as appointments had already been made pursuant to a fresh selection panel prepared in the year 2006.

8. The rejection of the respondents' claim led to another spate of litigation. It may not be necessary to refer to the orders passed by the High Court in various cases from time to time. Suffice it to say that the respondents also approached the High Court through a writ petition filed in the year 2013 seeking directions for

their appointment as per their merit in the selection panel. The said writ petition eventually came up for final hearing before the learned Single Judge on 02.11.2020 and was disposed of in the following terms:

"10. In view of the aforesaid facts and the findings given herein above and also the judgments passed in the case of petitioners, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the impugned order as contained in letter dated 26.07.2013 (Annexure-16), whereby the claim of the petitioners for appointment has been rejected on the ground that the life of panel has been lapsed, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.3-The Deputy Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi; who shall look into the matter and pass an appropriate order by considering the case of the petitioners in the light of the judgments already passed in their case wherein this Court directed the respondents authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment against vacant sanctioned post from the District Panel 1992 of Class-IV. It goes without saying that the respondent-authorities shall also consider to give relaxation in age to the petitioners, if they have crossed the prescribed age limit, while considering the case of the petitioners. It is made clear that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

11. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the instant writ application is disposed of."

9. The appellants filed an intra-Court appeal, but the same has been dismissed by the Division Bench vide impugned judgment dated 07.03.2022 in the following terms:

"13. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of these aspects of the matter and taking into consideration the fact about

the appointments of the juniors from the writ petitioners from the panel of the year, 1992 and even the appointments having been made in the year, 2005-06, if has allowed the writ petition directing the concerned respondents to appoint, the writ petitioners, the same cannot be said to suffer from infirmity.

14. This Court, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances and after going through the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, is of the view that the aforesaid order does not suffer from an error."

10. One of the contentions raised by learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellants is that out of 22 respondents, three have unfortunately passed away, 16 have attained the age of superannuation, two of them are not keen on appointment(s), whereas particulars of respondent no.3 are not available to determine his eligibility/suitability for appointment. In such circumstances, it is urged that the directions to consider or appoint the respondents cannot be given effect at this belated stage. Learned senior counsel reiterates the contention, as was raised before the High Court, that the select panel of 1992 was valid for one year and no appointment could be made out of such scrapped panel after the expiry of its validity period.

11. On the other hand, learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondents vehemently urges that the appellants cannot take advantage of their own wrongs. He submits that the appointments from the 1992 select panel were made on pick and choose basis and as late as in 2006

without adhering to inter se merit. He further submits that the delay, if at all, has occurred on account of pendency of the writ proceedings before the High Court for which the respondents cannot be held responsible.

12. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It appears to us that no effective relief to appoint the respondents at this belated juncture can be granted. As noticed earlier, 16 of the respondents have crossed the age of superannuation, whereas three have died. Two of them are not keen in appointment and the claim of respondent no.3 could not be verified for want of requisite documents. In our considered view, no deemed appointment can be accorded to the respondents when most of them are grossly overaged.

13. Having held so, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that a renewed cause of action accrued in favour of the respondents when candidates lower in merit than them were offered appointment without considering their claim. There was undoubtedly some delay on the part of the respondents in approaching the Court, but then their writ petition remained pending for a considerable long time and it was during that period only that they attained the age of superannuation.

14. Taking into consideration all the attending circumstances, including:- (i) the hardship faced by the respondents or their families who have been eagerly awaiting the outcome of their court-case for decades;

(ii) the fact that some of them have passed away leaving behind their dependent families without any secured measures of livelihood; (iii) the surviving respondents are now senior citizens and (iv) they are in dire need of some kind of social security in this old age, we are satisfied that the respondents deserve to be suitably compensated, without offering them appointment at this point of time.

15. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of and the impugned judgments passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are modified in the following terms:

(i) The appellants are directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh) to each respondent other than respondent nos.8, 16, and 17, subject to furnishing the requisite documents for their identification. On receipt of that amount, these respondents or their family members shall have no claim whatsoever on the basis of the select panel of 1992 or any subsequent Court order.

(ii) As regard to the deceased respondent nos.8, 16, and 17, their families deserve more compassion. The appellants are accordingly directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakh) to each of their families, subject to furnishing the requisite documents for verification of they being the only legal representatives of the deceased respondents. There shall

be no claim by any individual legal representative of the deceased respondents and the amount shall be paid in the name of the widow of the deceased-respondent. If the widow is not alive then the same shall be proportionately distributed amongst all the surviving legal representatives of the deceased-respondent.

(iii) If respondent No.3 furnishes the requisite documents to satisfy his eligibility and merit position at par with his surviving co-respondents, within two months, he will also be entitled to compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (ten lakh) as directed at (i) above.

(iv) The payments shall be made within a period of four months from the date of submission of requisite documents for identification/verification of the claims, as directed above.

...................J. (SURYA KANT)

...................J. (DIPANKAR DATTA)

New Delhi; October 03, 2023

REVISED

ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).12351/2023 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-03-2022 in LPA No.225/2021 passed by the High Court Of Jharkhand At Ranchi) STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

BALKISHUN RAM & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No.195901/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No.195900/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No.180545/2023 – APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION)

Date : 03-10-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Sr. Adv (A.A.G.) Mr. Rajeev Shanker Dvivedi, Adv. Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR Ms. Aastha Shrestha, Adv. Mr. Beenu Sharma, Adv.

• For Respondent(s) Mr. Tapen Sen, Sr. Adv.* Mr. Sumeir Ahuja, Adv.
  • Ms. Debolina Sen Hiren, Adv.
    • Mr. Nilanjan Sen, Adv.
    • Ms. Anchita Nayyar, Adv.
  • Mr. Rohan Chanda, Adv.
  • Mr. Yajur Bhalla, Adv.
  • Mr. Vishnu Kant Pandey, Adv.
  • Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. IA No.180545/2023 for substitution is allowed after condoning the delay. The abatement is set aside.

2. Cause title be amended accordingly.

• 3. Leave granted.
• 4. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
• 5. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) (signed order is placed on the file)

ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).12351/2023 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-03-2022 in LPA No.225/2021 passed by the High Court Of Jharkhand At Ranchi) STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

BALKISHUN RAM & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No.195901/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No.195900/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No.180545/2023 – APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION)

Date : 03-10-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Sr. Adv (A.A.G.) Mr. Rajeev Shanker Dvivedi, Adv. Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR Ms. Aastha Shrestha, Adv. Mr. Beenu Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sumeir Ahuja, Adv. Ms. Debolina Sen Hiren, Adv. Mr. Nilanjan Sen, Adv. Ms. Anchita Nayyar, Adv. Mr. Rohan Chanda, Adv. Mr. Yajur Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Kant Pandey, Adv. Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. IA No.180545/2023 for substitution is allowed after condoning the delay. The abatement is set aside.

2. Cause title be amended accordingly.

• 3. Leave granted.
• 4. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
• 5. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) (signed order is placed on the file)