Full Judgment Text
2023INSC777
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.31526 OF 2017
JAGPAL SINGH …PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. Shri Parthiv K. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Tanmaya Agarwal, learned counsel for the
respondents were heard on merits.
2. Under challenge is the judgment and order dated 04.09.2017
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court whereby the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2023.08.29
18:50:05 IST
Reason:
Special Appeal was allowed after setting aside the judgment
1
and order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.10.2012
allowing the Writ Petition No.25718 of 2011.
3. The result of the impugned order is that the services of the
petitioner who was appointed as the temporary Collection Peon
stood terminated, notwithstanding, the subsequent promotion
earned by him on the post of Collection Amin on the strength
of his continued working under the interim order passed by
the High Court.
The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Collection Peon
4.
on 01.02.1996. The appointment letter clearly stated that the
services of the petitioner were purely temporary and that he
could be removed without any notice. The services of the
petitioner as temporary Collection Peon were terminated
simpliciter vide order dated 30.11.1998 with one month’s
notice and salary & allowances.
5. Aggrieved by the termination of his services, petitioner filed a
Writ Petition No.42216 of 1998 (Jagpal Singh vs. District
Magistrate, Etawah and others). The said Writ Petition was
2
dismissed on 15.07.1999 by the learned Single Judge in limine
with the observation that since the petitioner is purely a
temporary appointee, as is evident from his appointment
letter, he has no right to the post.
6. Not satisfied by the above decision, petitioner preferred Letters
Patent Appeal i.e. Special Appeal No.740 of 1999 and obtained
an interim order on 19.08.1999 staying the operation of the
order of termination of his services. The petitioner, on the
strength of the aforesaid order, continued to function as
temporary Collection Peon. In view of his continued service,
ignoring the fact that his services actually stood terminated
and that he was working only under an interim order, the
petitioner was promoted on 05.10.2009 on the post of
Collection Amin by the District Selection Committee. The
Special Appeal was unfortunately dismissed in default on
25.08.2009. Consequent to the dismissal of the Special
Appeal, a detailed order was passed by the SubDivisional
Magistrate, Bharthana, on 01.03.2011 notifying that as the
services of the petitioner had been terminated and the said
3
order has attained finality with the dismissal of the Special
Appeal, consequently the promotion of the petitioner was
meaningless. Accordingly, petitioner stood reverted to the post
of Collection Peon and his service also stood determined as
earlier.
7. It may not be out of context to mention here that the petitioner
after the dismissal of the Special Appeal, for want of
prosecution, applied for recall of the order and the Special
Appeal was restored on 11.03.2011 but again it was got
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.04.2011. In short,
the Special Appeal arising from the Writ Petition challenging
the termination of the petitioner stood finally dismissed with
no relief to the petitioner. The services of the petitioner as
temporary Collection Peon accordingly stood determined as far
back as on 30.11.1998 which order became final and
conclusive.
8. Consequent to the order of the SubDivisional Magistrate
dated 01.03.2011 notifying termination of the services of the
petitioner in the wake of the earlier termination order
4
becoming final, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.25718 of 2011
challenging the same. The said Writ Petition was allowed by
the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated
31.10.2012 observing that the promotion granted to the
petitioner was not hedged by any condition, therefore, once the
petitioner had been promoted from the temporary post of
Collection Peon to the post of Collection Amin, his services
were not liable to be treated as determined.
9. The aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge was assailed
by the State of UP & others by means of Special Appeal
Defective No.392 of 2013 and the same has been allowed by
the order impugned dated 04.09.2017 on the ground that the
learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that the
continuance of the petitioner as temporary Collection Peon
and his consequential promotion as Collection Amin was only
on the basis of the interim order operating in the Special
Appeal though the services of the petitioner stood terminated.
The court further observed that once the services of the
petitioner stood terminated on 30.11.1998 and the Writ
5
Petition challenging the same had been dismissed as also the
Special Appeal thereof, the petitioner went out of service and
the very continuance of service of the petitioner on the
strength of interim order which merged in the final order of
dismissal of Special Appeal, lost all significance.
10. The submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner
Shri Parthiv K. Goswami is that the person who has continued
for so long, may be in view of the interim order operating in his
favour, cannot be thrown out in a cursory manner when a
conscious decision had been taken to promote him as
Collection Amin. Defending the impugned order, Shri Tanmaya
Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents had submitted
that once the very foundation on which the petitioner was
working had gone, his continuance in service and
consequential promotion is of no effect. The petitioner has no
right to continue in service either as Collection Amin or as
temporary Collection Peon after his termination was held to be
valid and was not interfered with by the courts.
6
11. The facts, as narrated above, clearly establish that the
petitioner was appointed simply as a temporary Collection
Peon and his services were determined simpliciter within three
years vide order dated 30.11.1998. The said order, terminating
the services of the petitioner, is final and conclusive. It has not
been disturbed by any court of law. However, the petitioner
continued to function as temporary Collection Peon on the
strength of an interim order passed in Special Appeal which
was ultimately dismissed. Therefore, any promotion given to
the petitioner consequent to his continuance in service on the
strength of the interim order would automatically fall to the
ground once the Special Leave Petition is dismissed and the
termination order attains finality.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the
opinion that the view expressed by the Division Bench of the
High Court in allowing the appeal, is well within the four
corners of law which order does not suffer from any material
illegality or irregularity. The Division Bench has rightly set
aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge
7
dated 31.10.2012 by which the writ petition was allowed in
complete ignorance of the fact that the services of the
petitioner stood determined long back and that the petitioner
is not entitled to any benefit on the basis of his subsequent
promotion which automatically falls with the termination
attaining finality. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Special
Leave Petition and the same is dismissed, however, the
respondents shall not initiate any recovery of the salary drawn
by the petitioner for the period he has actually worked.
……………………….. J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
……………………….. J.
(PANKAJ MITHAL)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 29, 2023.
8