Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 551 of 2008
PETITIONER:
State of Punjab & Anr
RESPONDENT:
Harbhajan Kaur
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/01/2008
BENCH:
CJI K. G. Balakrishnan,R. V. Raveendran & Dalveer Bhandari
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
(Arising out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 10668 OF 2006)
Leave granted. Heard both sides.
The respondent herein filed a civil suit alleging that she was not
appointed by the State, though selected for the post of Mid-wife, while other
candidates with lesser merit were appointed on 17.6.1986. The suit was
decreed on 31.7.1997 declaring that the appellant was entitled to be
appointed and directing the appellant State to consider her for appointment
within a period of three months from the date of decree. The State went in
appeal against the decree and that appeal was dismissed. The State filed a
second appeal which was dismissed and the SLP filed by the State was also
dismissed. Only thereafter, the respondent was appointed on 31.8.2000.
The respondent filed a fresh suit claiming that she should have been
appointed with effect from 17.6.1986 with all consequential benefits
including salary and allowances. That suit was dismissed. The First
Appellant Court, however, decreed the suit in part and declared that she was
entitled to all monetary benefits, seniority and length of service with effect
from 8.10.1991 (the date of filing the first suit). The High Court, by the
impugned Judgment has affirmed the said decree.
We find that in the first round of litigation, the only direction was to
consider the respondent for appointment and appoint her within three
months, that is on or before 31.10.1997. There was no direction to appoint
the respondent with retrospective effect or to give monetary or other benefits
from such retrospective date. That judgment attained finality. Therefore, the
appointment had to be made prospectively, after the date of judgment dated
31.7.1997. Therefore, the direction given in the second round of litigation to
make the appointment of respondent effective from 8.10.1991 cannot be
sustained.
As per the decree dated 31.7.1997 in the first round litigation, the
respondent ought to have been appointed within three months from that date,
that is 31.10.1997. But we find that on account of that decree being
challenged, the respondent was appointed only on 31.8.2000. In the
circumstances, the respondent was entitled to get the benefits of appointment
including salary and allowances only from 1.11.1997, as per the decree
dated 31.7.1997. In the result, we allow this appeal in part and modify the
decree by substituting the effective date of appointment of respondent as
1.11.1997. Consequently, the State shall also pay salary and allowances to
the respondent only from 1.11.1997 and not from 8.10.1991. No costs.