10 June 2024


Supreme Court

Samir Kumar Majumder Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Ors.




Party ought not to be vexed twice in litigation for one and the same cause

The Appellant) was a school teacher at the Railway Higher Secondary School is aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court. By the said judgment, the High Court denied him absorption as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section and also rejected his claim for continuity in service.

In the interest of the State, there should be an end to litigation and no party ought to be vexed twice in a litigation for one and the same cause. The Appellant's right first of all flows from the Master Circular dated 29th January, 1991, as has been rightly contended by the Appellant. On completion of three months of continuous service as substitute teacher, the incumbent acquires temporary status. It is also clear that substitutes who have acquired temporary status should be screened by the Screening Committee and not by Selection Board. It is also clear that under Clause 5.11, gaps which may occur in service of substitutes between two engagements should be ignored for the purpose of temporary status on completion of four months service and in case of teachers, on completion of three months service.

Further, it is clear that the date of appointment should be the date on which they attained temporary status in the event they are regularly absorbed. As is clear from the dates, the Appellant having acquired temporary status on 4th March, 1990 is entitled to count his service from 4th March, 1990 in view of his absorption in the service as a primary teacher on 2nd January, 1998.

The Appellant being identically situated with the other absorbees in the order of 2nd January, 1998 could not have been discriminated and denied the benefit of his service from 4th March, 1990 to the date of his absorption.The Tribunal and the High Court have grossly erred in denying the relief by wrongly understanding the orders of this Court and the legal position.

The Appellant will be entitled to take into account the past service rendered by him as substitute teacher in different spells, from the date of obtaining temporary status. The Appellant should be extended the same benefits as were extended to others.

The Appellant has superannuated now. The pay of the Appellant shall be re-fixed after granting continuity of service with all consequential benefits in accordance with Clause 6 of the Master Circular dated 29th January, 1991. All the necessary increments and allowances due on that basis also should be granted. The retrial benefits also should be consequently reworked. Accordingly, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. Appeal partly allowed.

Tags : Absorption Denial Legality

Share :