In Indian administrative law, government employees who are not regularized (formally appointed to permanent positions) are generally not entitled to pension benefits, even after long periods of service. The Gauhati High Court has consistently held that pension is a statutory right that requires the employee to hold a substantive permanent post under government service. When employees are engaged as temporary workers, daily wage laborers, or work charges without formal regularization, they cannot claim pension or family pension benefits, regardless of their years of service. This principle applies even when the employee has rendered continuous service for decades, as the lack of formal regularization means they never acquired the legal status necessary to qualify for pensionary benefits.
Court No 1Añadido:
Amen request from item number one to 8.
Item number eight in this case we have file rejoinder today only. So it may be taken up next Tuesday of disclosure.
What is this matter about?
This is not what is this matter about policy? No.
>> Anyway, what do you want? You want to rejoin?
>> Yes.
>> Take that.
Mrs. Our DI learned advocate for the petitioners leer of India and other seeks some time to file a rejoinder affidavit to let such an affidavit be filed positively by the next state renotified then we give you time in August >> what's the next Thursday >> next Thursday is not possible All this interaction >> can it be before?
>> First week of August.
>> First week of August. Give a date.
>> Lordship of August.
>> Sixth round of litigation. Lordship.
>> I know. Therefore, therefore we are not readily forthcoming with the with the order granting the request of adjournment or July.
>> They should have done that. I think I don't think you have anything to nonetheless. August first week.
I don't ask for any adjournment thereafter.
Yes. 9 to5 item number 14 and 15.
>> 14 and 15. You have circulated the slip.
Circulated the slip.
>> Yes. Yes.
>> Uh but slip has been circulated only in item number 15. Have you informed uh the council and >> Yes. Yes. I have informed >> 14 and 15 or 16.
>> No. 1415.
>> Very good. As prayed for on behalf of the appalents in WA number 360 of 2014 and WA number 23 of 2017, both the appeals are directed to be listed under the same heading on again August let's see second week of August.
10th of August 16 to 30 to 21.
>> Yes.
>> Can it be on the 14th of June?
>> What is the difficulty Mr. Go?
>> My senior led by some difficulty today.
>> When do you own it?
>> First week of June. First week of June not >> you can have it in in second week of July >> when the court reopens after the rainy break >> after reoping.
>> After reopening >> after reoping >> all right as prayed for on behalf of the appalent let all these analogous matters be listed on 17th 17th of July. Would it be little bit later next week thereafter?
>> 4th of July.
>> 24th of July. Highly >> let it be 23rd of July. That will be a Thursday.
>> Highly obed.
>> 22 also you have circulated the slip.
Today you have you have large number of matters where you have circulated the agenda slip. Who leads you in this matter? It's in your >> then August.
>> Yes. August item 27 to 29 will be consent of the >> item 27 to 29.
>> Why has some difficulty?
>> No. Have you taken his consent? This is Satala and6 lordship. In fact in the main case we have also I have checked the I have prepared the case but in the main core case no if it defeated or rejoinder has been filed >> no has the >> other cases we have filed >> that judgment by board of revenue has the translated and corrected version been supplied >> supplied >> uh supplied supplied >> supplied >> that epidemic may be required in >> that in the first case justice came it is what order but this very critical case for the state lordship very crucial case >> that's all right >> because it concerns parties and land in >> so you know >> it has a huge historical thing legacy and it has been >> Mr. Dant das was appearing uh if I remember correctly.
>> Yes.
>> H >> yes.
>> Then we keep this again in August.
August >> or in the first uh it could be >> no difficulty Lord >> as do we say as jointly prayed for >> maybe Lord >> as jointly prayed for renotify both the appeals on give a date in August uh >> 6th of August >> 6th of August >> oblent 26 we have circulated a slip on behalf of appalent state >> number 20 >> 26 what do we do then in fact we should not keep this day only reserved for hearing as prayed for on behalf of you appear for the state of Assam >> uh on behalf of additional leg Mr. As prayed for on behalf of the appalent/state, let this matter come up for consideration.
Any other requests >> for orders? Item number one.
>> Is your loss?
>> Yes. Well, this is a review application in respect of land acquisition measure.
So far as the I is concerned your ship has already passed an order on 20th of February 2026.
>> Yes.
>> That it will be taken up along with the so already record to pass in the >> and so you can argue your review. My suggestion would be today in this case already >> as prayed for. All right. So next week >> next week as next week >> can you serve the affidavit uh on Mr. Chri in advance a sign copy lordship immediately >> and then if you have to rejoin you also rejoin in case review I don't think any rejoined is necessary >> it's not necessary because the my life >> all right so so don't take time on that ground later as prayed for by Mr. Nyak learn and additional advocate general let this uh matter come up for consideration and first week of on 14th of July >> item number two he said that Mr. Nandi have you informed >> I have informed Mr. But I am told my since he's not the standing council >> and he's not interested with the >> respondent yesterday.
I'm the builder.
>> You're the builder.
>> Can I have your name please?
>> Yes.
>> So and so let an advocate has appeared for respond number four.
Seek some time to put in as a response to the petition.
Let such an affidavit be filed on or before the next date is done renotify on times in July.
>> Are we on bank?
>> Bank is complete my all the all the respondents complete.
>> All right.
>> Yes.
>> 29th of July item number three.
>> Yes.
is your model case number 164.
165 >> 164 Balot.
>> Yes.
>> Of the petitioner reported single just is number 165.
Uh the third par the petitioner is agreed by an order dated 2712 2012 by which he has been rejected from his service his service in Assam ripples on the ground of medical incapacity and overest. The medical incapacity was urged by the petitioner not to be ground of disad and in his in this regard the petitioner along with other had approached this court by way of various petition including 4710 2008 which was disposed of on 108 2012 the forced branch of disposal of by the demanding the matter to the authorities to reexamine the medical status of the incumbent incumbent including the petitioner. It is specific case of the petition that after s demanded through the fight report dated 33 10 20 he has been held to be unfit with the remark that specialist opinion is enclosed such the opinion is later on dated 53 that is the case of the petitioner honorable court that is in case number 166 last paramor in view of the above mut order dated 27th 2012 is set aside and the petitioner is directed to conducted in the service as a training constable under the Assam rifles. The authorities however a liberty to have periodical medical review of the petitioner as per existing role. It is also made clear that the age of the petitioner shall not come in the way of the induction in as much as as when the petitioner had applied for the post and his candidac was rejected on account of the sard against that order. We have filed one review petition >> that also was dismissed.
>> That was dismissed. Dismiss our >> give us a minute. Yes ma'am. Go ahead.
Yes.
510.
So T and Python. This is the ground.
order was passed earlier and report is later then it was again so that instruction that's why he's not gone into anything that you cannot rely on a report which is subsequent to Yes. What do you have to say?
>> Mr. Patrick, >> my lord sees otherwise the petitioner has been pursuing this litigation from the year 2001. Your >> ground on which >> they're rather hesitant. One thing which I wanted to point out to you Lord Philip apart from the ground on which the learned single judge set aside the order the petitioner was said to be se suffering from a deviated nasal septum as per the own guidelines of the assam rifles my lord >> that is a temporary that's not a problem at all >> now had it come to us before that >> now for these 12 years how many years you were discharged invalidated when >> 2001 >> 2001 we are in 200 26.
Of of course this can't fully be attributed to you. But then when you were declared to be unfit for the second time, >> my words >> and your uh services were discharged.
This was by order dated 27th of December 2012. Is that correct?
>> My lord.
>> And then you you filed a petition. Then when did you file a petition?
>> 2016.
>> Ah so after 4 years.
So not that you have pursued it with the diligence required of you.
>> I love it.
>> But on that slender ground, how do we do it? And of course it's it will not be easy for Miss Gan to overcome that >> especially when the senior judge has uh when when the single judge has dealt with it.
>> May I make a suggestion for a law?
>> Now we can only say let's be fair to you as well. We can only say that it'll it it was only a confirmatory report.
It was based on a medical report. A specialist opinion is only confirmatory.
But on that ground could age and the medical invalidation whether that could be brushed aside that's the question.
>> My how do we justify we are only looking at it from your angle. My >> or for the benefit of an employee >> but then which which court will sustain this >> after 20 see the order has to be passed >> order should be such that it is effected my lord >> it is effective and it is sustained my lord now after 26 years of your invalidation on whichever ground do we do we have any justification of asking your employer to take you back >> my lord say may I make a submission for a lot's consideration in the other petitioners where come along with me logic in their cases the coordinate division said that they should be given an opportunity to complete the basic training and if they are successful then they should be inducted if a similar opportunity is granted to me because otherwise it was only a temporary disability let them conduct a fresh medical examination and give me an opportunity to participate in the complete the basic review if I'm successful then they may consider my induction Otherwise he was 44.
I understand the age is because he has been pursuing you. If he's granted an opportunity at least it will be fair for him also.
Speaking from here we are inclined but speaking from mind we are not.
If he's successful, if he because if he is no how will he I mean even if he is successful after 26 years of his of your invalidation we are asking the employer to take you back of course you'll agree for no back wages no seniority nothing fresh appointment but can we do it that's the question which we are putting to ourselves >> there was a age limit at that point of time or even induction Now at this age forget about age relaxation at this age can we do that at you are at 44 I'm >> so you'll be inducted at 44 which is not at all permissible >> what kind of training would be imparted to you at this age for a costable general duty >> your in the case >> normally normally people in army retire >> my lords >> bad luck for you and I don't know why you were invalidated it was only a septum >> my lord Is it dev >> severe airway inadequacy or obstruction that's that's remedied by minor operation >> minor procedure is required >> this is no question the other petitioners will come along with the present petitioner >> but why did you take four years >> my lord at that >> after 12 you came in 2016 I mean >> it was not it was not continuous I mean your diligence is lacking some you were perhaps happy maybe maybe you I don't know how >> fancy you join you file a repetition after that judgment was delivered >> by you are a fancy >> after judgment was >> but it's a difficult case for us to uh to to sort of reject your uh claim >> but then Seeing the totality of the circumstances we are not getting persuaded if he's no in kumiums to Miss Gan that that she succeeds is not a ground for her to to pat her back >> the difficulty is that after 26 years no amount of you know legal juggler would justify our reasoning >> only whatever >> why I'm addressing this petition because The original ground of invalidation your lordship was so trivial.
>> Where where is the dispute Mr. Patak?
>> My lords >> we are finding it even today. Why original? We are finding it even today.
>> My lords >> the proper cause for the courts to have been to direct that in such cases you must consider if it is a if it is a if it is an illness which could be removed by simple operation do it. Ask them to go for training and then inducted service.
That was absolutely unnecessary giving that leeway. But after 26 years, we would be very lo in granting that privilege to especially in paramilitary. This is what assam rifles a paramilitary.
>> Your lordship then grants me an opportunity. If there is some precedent of something like this happening before your >> Yeah. If you if you're trying to show us any president under article 142, we don't have that power.
>> I I understand that.
If because other than dar lordship at this stage I perhaps what kind of employer for septum the only thing which is holding us back is this otherwise the safest option is to is to ratify the otherwise willing to be given an opportunity to I mean complete the basic training and only If he's successful in it then he may be considered.
I have this is instruction all this delay for us also 2014 system.
What was the earlier division when judgment?
>> The earlier judgment your lordship starts at 46.
The directions your lordship will find at page number 73 7. It is start at the bottom of 72. In fact >> the impun order ded 27 I'm reading from paragraph 14.
The impure order 2712 2012 itself indicates that the petitioners were enrolled into the assam rifles.
Particularly the difficulty what we are seeing in this is if we ratify the single judges order the difficulty is that it'll open a floodgate then this time limit would be completely you know abandoned that would give a platform to very many otherwise this present petitioner is the last I think remaining candidates from that first batch of petitioners who had come before your lordships in 2012. 12 I mean the judgment of 2012 2018 they come before this court in 2013 >> give us give us some very strong reasons we have I mean the the the heart is getting better of There are fewer instances when we get stuck up like this especially while when it comes to decision making.
I'm sure you must have been gainfully employed in the meanwhile. I'm sure I don't want a I I don't want a disclosure from you now, but I'm sure that you would have been gainfully >> if I may be frank, your lordship, his wife left him because he lost the job.
I mean his personal life, he has also been suffering a lot. Those are my instructions. I mean for people from their humble backgrounds a government job your lordship holds a lot of weight.
The only difficulty Mr. Patak is that if we ratify the single judge's order it shall not be sustained. You shall not get into >> I'm sure they challenging.
>> You may succeed.
>> Yeah.
phrase >> we give you one more time that's not let's not allow that petition today there's a stay of the operation of the judgment >> no >> ah >> is coming my lord >> there is a content petition pending but we are not since there's a written pending we are not really pursuing that because for induction medical Not only for disability.
>> Where are those orders where those persons who were invalidated they were again put to that test and they passed.
>> The judgment of the division coordinate bench lordship will find a page number.
It starts at 66 and the directions they start at the bottom of page number 72.
Paragraph number 14.
So don't pass by a coordinate division bit.
induction whether he's fit to go for training events.
So one of the sample orders that have been passed pursuing to this order I have enclosed along with the myition that your lordship will find a page number 64 >> that doesn't that doesn't satisfy the uh doubt which we have in our mind >> my lord uh that are related to person who bically fit in appeal medical admitted that the report was not necessary at this point. We have heard Miss Aan who CGC the learned CGC for the appellent and Mr. KP partak for the respondent.
The respondent had been provisionally selected as a general duty rifleman in the year 2001 under the Assam rifles a paramilitary force under ministry of home affairs government of India.
However, such selection was subject to and conditional on is passing a final/confirm medical examination.
during the confirmatory medical checkup at the relevant medical facility.
The respondent was declared medically unfit because of a medical condition described as DNS right severe airways inadequate.
Perhaps perhaps the medical unfitness was for the reason of deviated nasal septum on the right side with airway obstruction.
This is a melody which in our estimation can be rectified by a simple operation.
We are not medical experts. The learned council for the the learned council for the respondent has submitted that this was an ailment which was very temporary and could have been rectified even by a smaller surgical intervention.
Nonetheless, the respondent was discharged from force on 31st of October 2001.
Which order was based on the recommendation of invalidation medical board.
Precisely for this reason, namely he's not coming out successful in the medical checkup.
Come on. He could not complete his basic training and therefore he was not held to have entered the force for all practical purposes.
The discharge of the respondent was questioned by him before this court by a red petition.
by grid petition number 4710 of 2008 which was disposed of with a direction to the Asam rifles a fresh applet medical board preferably including a specialist in the relevant field of disability.
to re-examine the respondent for his medical fitness, for his confirmation as the rifleman in the force.
They the respondent was pursued to the orders passed by this court examined by the applet medical board on 3rd of October 2012 but he was again found unfit for the same medical reason.
The rejection of the claim of the respondent was communicated to him on 27th of December 2012.
Next, after about four years, the respondent referred a fresh petition bracket WPC C number 5172 of 2016, mounting a challenge to the communication of discharge data 27th of December 2012, the learned single judge noticed that the Appalate Medical Board had examined the respondent on 3rd of October 2012.
But there was a specialist a specialist's apostrophe opinion on record which was of a later date that's of 5th of October 2012.
It was thus argued by the respondent before the learned single judge that flouting the directions of this court, the opinion regarding medical disability was arrived at by the Appallet Medical Board in the absence of an opinion of the specialist.
This child.
Let me let me just let let it come to me. It is what have I said?
In the absence of an opinion of the specialist Mr. On that score alone, the Lind single judge quashed the order of discharge dated 27th of December 2012 and directed for the induction of the respondent.
After allowing him to undergo the requisite training and such induction.
Comma, it was observed would be subject to his passing the tests with relaxation in the age requirement.
We notice next part. We notice that all this has consumed time and 26 years have passed since the discharge of the respondent to be fair to the parties.
An opinion of the applet medical board cannot be brushed aside merely because the opinion of one of the specialists is of a later date.
of the Appallet Medical Board would surely have comprised other specialists in the field.
So the counterargument would be that in that event there was no justification for taking an expert's opinion.
And that it was only on the direction of this court who preferably have a specialist in the medical disability complaint against the appalent of being member of the applet medical board.
Applate medical board Mr. particular and advocate for the respondent however submits that it cannot now be doubted regardless of the respondent having opposed the court after 4 years of the rejection of the invalidation of the medical invalid of the discharge that the authorities had made up their mind to ratify the discharge order passed in the beginning.
Not withstanding the fact that the disability noted could have been easily addressed without losing time.
However, there is nothing on record to indicate that there were nothing uh nothing on record to to to indicate any malif fights except except an official recalcitrance or objurously in not reviewing their own decision.
So the question which confronts us today is whether on that ground after after a lapse of 36 years the respondent could have been directed to be reinstated in service and to to be imparted required training by relaxing his age.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, we request Miss Grant to take instructions whether whether it would be possible to it will be possible to accommodate the respondent in a non-combative duty.
Subject to his passing.
Subject to his passing the requisite training after relaxing the age requirement.
We have said so for the reason that we find the initial initial discharge order on grounds of medical disability to be very doubtful as it was never explored by the employer whether such disability was temporary and could be removed by minor surgical operations.
And whether such disability would have prevented the opponent, a respondent from exercising his normal duties as a rifleman awaiting the response of the apoll. The matter is a gentle. This is something which is beyond our mandate but we have done it because we feel strongly for >> the person for steppm I mean for for sneezing >> anyway this is not legally very very sustainable order but let's see if you can give him a non-combative duty let's Yes, >> July.
>> Absolutely beyond our remit. But anyway, >> item four time being pass to answer Mr. Koshik. Now this is the second petition. We have already heard you. You are a scientist of great repute. This claim is yours.
>> I have the instruction.
We had asked you to take instructions to >> with taken the instruction meal >> I would like to withdraw me. However meal with some kind consideration meot as since he's retiring on February 2027 and in the last date me the learner senior council has fairly submitted that there is a policy for asking for choosing the home district if there is a within the >> you find that shall be considered. Mal will give some observation. Man, >> we'll we'll leave that liberty to you.
>> Yes, I'll give the liberty to choose.
>> And where is the other petition? This is the same petition.
>> This was the same one.
>> Now, if we if we advert to the facts, perhaps that also would not be. We'll simply >> we will allow you to withdraw this petition >> with the liberty >> with the liberty to approach the uh respondents >> for posting as per >> for posting as per policy for home posting as per policy in the last leg of his service. Consider it >> consider consider it. Now all these grounds we have not he has not found favor with us that he is up to such big research that his transfer would cause some national damage to national interest and all that that's already >> some material is required to make a petition >> anyway after some arguments Mr. be cautic learn and advocate for the petitioner. Seeks permission to uh seeks permission to withdraw this petition in order to make a representation before his employer/respondents.
Consider his case for his transfer to his home district in the last leg of his service as he's shortly to retire >> February 27.
>> He's he's his he's his he's his he's his he's his he's his he's his he's his he's his he's his he's he's due to retire shortly. is due to retire shortly.
Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty of forset with the hope and expectation that any representation filed by the petitioner shall be considered by the author. grateful >> the and he shall be communicated the uh the outcome and and he shall be communicated the the decision for >> yes item five and six Yes.
>> Sir in one case state that is appalent where Mr. And another item item 31 also I think similar 31 in fact 31 has been decided passed by this honorable court. I mean the divisional death and uh >> division Benj is there that was >> in three cases division Ben has been first is uh in all in two cases except Mr. Bakur's case all all these cases then relying upon >> Mandala they were even in the same division Lord exactly >> you just start your arguments >> 31 31 item number Six number five which item is also item number five >> principle will be same your argument will be same in all the cases >> then in that situation >> except the item number >> the option is yours you want to argue ga perman you're you at liberty >> but but the better option according to us would be if you address us uh in WA number 392 of 2015 the commission secretary of the government of Asam versus Ratan Basumatari lot of is an older was not appearing in that matter. That matter has been along with All right. This this is of 2015.
Long time has passed.
Anyway, ultimately in this matter in terms of ship direction, I've hired one additional in this matter if Lordship comes to the additional process.
>> He gave some directions also. Uh yes, he to respond from page 142.
The husband of the petitioner was appointed engagement as a master lordship in the >> 144 lordship.
>> Yes, >> I'm slightly referring to the fact he was appointed as engaged as a master worker on 17981.
Then he was upgraded to work surge on 8th 9 1996.
He expired on 211 2011 after 30 years of service losses and thereafter lots of his wife. I mean the disease person learned signal just was pleased to dismiss the petition. Accordingly this field was >> I think employer also send a proposal for window.
>> Yes. for to clarify that position this additional cross if lock comes to the lock if it's been filed by the chief engineer BW I'm reading the reading from paragraph three paragraph key >> that the public work road department which has been arrayed as a response number 1 3 4 and five >> in the instant rate has already filed its FD in opposition in response to the determinance made in the edition during Wish number so and so. However, on 287 2025 when the present came up for consideration and it was pointed out to the honorable court that in the appeal filed by the evidence petitioner for the first time a claim has been made that the deceased husband of the petitioner was working against the sanction and post. The honorable court for bypassing its order is a 28725 directed the respondents to obtain instruction and file as regards. Once whether the late husband of the appent was employed against sanction force and two on account of possible oversight of by which the name of the name of the late husband of the appellent was not included in the list of beneficiaries for regularization. Now you have correctly formulated the issue. This is the question which we have in our mind otherwise otherwise we would not have otherwise you know gone deep into it.
>> Yes. So far as the first issue is concerned engagement against a sanctioned back and post that will have denied. He was never engaged any sanction back and post and so far as the second issue >> was never engaged on any sanctioned post.
>> No >> that has been denied.
>> Paragraph five.
>> Read that. Paragraph 5.
As a result, the first question put forth by the honorable as to whether the deceased husband of the appalent was employed against a sanction. The department here in most humbly begs to state that he the husband of the petitioner namely late Suturu Borman was initially appointed as master amar against labor on 17 1981 and subsequently he was temporarily engaged as a work search so provisionally for 3 months only but office order dated 78 1996 that is NX1 and allowed to continue as works as killer by office order number so and so dated 1812 1997. He is it is pertinent to mention that leuku borman that is the disease husband of the aan was working as works as sukida and he was never appointed against a sanctioned back and forth.
Further the department maintained a service role in the name of late shumon and not a service book. It is pertinent to note that note here that a service book is distinct from a service role whereas a service book is a comprehensive detailed record of an employes's entire career including all administrative actions from recruitment to retirement. A service book on the a service role on the other hand is a simple record often used for specific purposes such as tracking attendance, absencees and other related information for a defined group of employees often for a particular period of project lemon was engaged as a master before 1994 1993 and later as warer after 14 1993. Three, master and workers are different types of engagement as they differ in their purpose and conditions. Whereas master laborers typically engage for daily of daily or short-term task with their attendance and wages recorded on the master document. On the other hand, works of influence are engaged for specific projects or works and are often associated with government departments.
These engagements that is MR for W shift are >> under under which any any project against which this man was uh appointed as works as >> any project whether it was of a permanent character >> it was not even a project so works as just walks as no work is always against a project because the payments are made through a different fund. time submitting. It was not against any project also. It was just simply appointed as work surfer.
>> No, but what was the purpose of converting him from master role to work charge?
>> So far as you see work charge technically speaking if you go by Jaswan Singh's ruling Supreme Court state of Punjab versus Jaswan Singh or Jawswan Singh versus state of Punjab there they have explained what work charge is. Normally work charge is for a for a term for a period >> not so >> organization >> say say >> development project.
>> Yes. and somebody employed. But if it partakes of the character of a permanent organization then perhaps it is difficult and most of the states have come out and in fact you in the state of Asam you as an employer you have also come out with a circular that anybody having been converted into a work charge establishment and continuing for so many years will get an opportunity if his appointment date is before or after there is a cut off date and he shall be granted a temporary government servant status.
Temporary government servant he becomes special >> regulariz >> no no regularize is later. Now those whom you don't regularize you have a provision for giving them temporary status.
>> It is not exactly temporary status.
>> No no this is I >> that is the undertaking. They are only telling you that this is the process by which you convert your one employment into the other because normally it is this. So if it were not a project then perhaps he was engaged as a permanent as as a an organization which which had which which was permanent in nature and his duties also were of a permanent person permanent chok >> but without without having that >> Mr. We are not disputing that for one for one person we are not going to tinker with law >> but we need to know >> why why work charge without a project then why should it not be considered in accordance with the judgment span India that it was a permanent kind of an engagement and therefore pensionable at least for family pension not pension but family pension he should get why not Because >> that is the question which we ask and especially when your own when when the superintending engineer writes a letter that his name was excluded from that list only for the reason of oversight these days is used as a different expression >> addressing that issue also. It also comes to paragraph six.
>> Why are putting this question? You have raised this point that works is something different against one and so forth that is in the clarified and it in also premi specifically said what should be the narr of a work employee in the context of Singh just >> Singh >> so Jasban Singh was dealt it in prem also >> prem is basically no on this point I'm not going to the princip We are going to suggest you I mean we will consider the feasibility of suggesting to the government that they should come out with a circular with a with a law with respect to work charge. So far as family pension is concerned like in other states otherwise uh I mean you keep on getting such litigation where you have to contest tooth and nail. In fact decided this issue has specifically decided >> inendas >> inendas so many judgments >> otherwise it's a decided issue so instead of going into all the materials prop as per your convenience you have specifically asked a question why his name was yes that question comes to paragraph that as regards to the second question raised by the honorable court as to whether on account of a possible oversight by which the name of the name of the lead of the opinion was not included in the list of beneficiaries for regularization for such mistake of the government. There should be such strict reading the scheme is in order to avoid making payment of family pension to the widow of the disease employee. The defendant Mohammed B state that in pursuance of cabinet decision dated 2272 2005 the finance department return number so dated 228 2005 concer to the creation of 59 5892 numbers of different boxes great post and 25,69 numbers of different grade four for the purpose of regularation of number of given workers and workers of nine departments of the governments of Assam who were engaged prior to Jan 1993 on the basis of reprotorial from the departments. In the finance department 288 2005 it was clearly mentioned that the post could be create would be personal to the respective workers workers and as soon as post are railing by the respective worker the post would get evolution. It is pertinent to mention that government of Assam by letter numbered 21st October 2006 instructed the public works agriculture animal husbandry and veterary water resource transport irrigation public health engineering soil conservation and textile and criculture department to present proposals for regularization in respect of those MR worker who were engaged by the department prior to 1493. country and who have been rendering uninterrupted service since their joining and who were left out in the court field. Accordingly, proposals were forwarded to the finance department from various departments for regularization of services of the network engaged by the department prior to one 1993 and who have been rendering uninterrupted service since their job date of join.
This will be first. This is never going to open.
>> Even after 2005 blocks, another notification was issued in the year 2006 to consider regation of service of the left of Master Walker. Then lock will come to the next. However, there and others have been to by the honorable Supreme Court in paragraph 53 of the judgment. Bad luck for Mr. Bhman that before his name could be inserted in that list Umad Dvi and that is how you treat but here Umadvi prospective no I'm coming to address that is take 50 is 50 Umadi last four lines last four lines five lines of >> yes yes yes >> six lines from in that particular paragraph We also clarify this is paragraph.
>> Yes. Yes. Yes.
>> We also clarify that regularization if any already made but not subsidies need not be reopened based on deservement but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent those not duly appointed as per the constitutional.
So this is the heart of law.
Last six lines of paragraph 53 of the bizarre basicity but >> yes.
>> So that was the superior face lawsuit after 2006. Next line lawsuit. The last six lines of paragraph 53 of the omad judgment clearly imposed the restriction by clarifying that regularation if any already made by but not subjudice need not be reopened. I'm skipping that paragraph. Rox has already read. Next paragraph further restriction was imposed by the honorable Gohaki High Court in this regard. Hydrri ordered it with 175 2006 passing WPC number so and so so and so that is the general and others reported in 2006 to GT65. This is a full result also. Next paragraph in fact the state of Assam by way of P.
This is important also which can be considered this paragraph. In fact, the state of Assam by way of filing an application being MC number 5972012 for grant of leave of the honorable court to implement the policy of for regularation in the s application. A honorable division of Goati High Court by its order is 27th 2012 was pleased to decline to grant the prayer by holding. They had to know.
They had to know this policy. You don't you don't seek leave of the court executive. You have to make the policy.
Why do you have Why did you have to go to court to take permission?
>> Why did you have to go to court to take permission?
>> Not because >> the court should have the court should have at best restraint from saying that we don't pass orders under hypothetical situation. You come out with a law, you come out with a proposal, we'll test it constitutionally. We There are no teachers here.
>> That's it. My understanding is that this player from Umadi Jman that keep someone who doesn't fulfill the >> All right. So you don't come with so you don't come with that policy but where is the question? Where is this concept of permission to come out with a legislation?
>> Lord in the meantime Lord we already declared a policy in 2006 that we are going to regularize the lift of mal workers.
Correct.
>> Left in the year 2005. That is why as it was not in terms of paragraph 53 logic that is why we filed that logic if logic comes to NXL 4 logic that is the order passed by the board.
>> Mr. Just clarify in Jen Kolita the question was the policy was for regularation of master and workers but in different single branches the regularation was directed on to ad hoc temporary many employees. Therefore a divergent view was there whether it will be applicable to workers casual and to all others employees who are temporary adop and in that context judgment was passed that this pol this cannot be allowed today I'm not having in ultimately it was held that the policy for regularization of 1995 initiated by the state government was not a valid policy policy and 2005 policy was almost similar as it was mentioned in Jasmine.
1995 court set aside and the further paragraph in J10 Kolita saying that we are we are not going >> and it was a not individual it was a passing comment in J10 Kolita no determination was made we cannot approve if we go to that specific paragraph >> that specific paragraph lot I can place the judgment it was clearly mentioned that policy of 1999 95 was not a valid policy. That line was true.
comes to page 164.
>> Yes.
>> It's not already This is not subject 164.
>> Yes, >> this is the judgment logic inside the author.
The the issue taken up by way of this petition arises from letter dates 216 received from simony data regarding conditions of test different issues.
There will have shown the reason for scarcity of manpower.
Test two. The court appointed a committee to visit the safe jail and submitted a report. On due consideration of the report, it was noticed that a regular employee was required to be posted for maintenance of housing. A statement was made on behalf of the state of Assad that uh the workers already working on casual basis will be posted as regular employee as per policy of the state for regularization but order dated 111 2010. It was observed that no order would be exist and receive more.
No more exception.
of this project.
unnecessary.
It's not subject in that case otherwise and very sure before this is She wanted to note Then post it First of no presidential.
>> Yes, >> you can take your seat mister.
>> Yes.
>> 165.
>> No, that we have seen >> that we have seen why the prayer has been declined.
>> Yes. No, the reason is if the state cannot regularize casual workers as per law laid down by the honorable Supreme Court, we fail to understand how we can give direction to adopt a policy which may be in violation of a judgment of the honorable Supreme Court. We accordingly declined to grant that pair. The difficulty is this that you projected this as a different kind of a permission which you were trying to take. We are not laying blame on you. We are not even questioning the wisdom of the honorable judges. The question was this, you should have said that before Umadvi came, we had already taken a decision.
So it is no longer subjudice. Now these are facts and by virtue of that we have already regularized that Umadi in no uncertain terms says that what has been done will not be reopened.
>> That's >> but whatever is subjudice. Subjudice means that it subjudice does not necessarily mean that you're contemplating of doing. Subjudice means when a matter is brought before the court and is pending consideration. No.
So I think I think no judge no bench would have given you this liberty of passing a law or a resolution or an ordinance against the verdict of the Supreme Court just but there was no requirement for you to do that if you have if you were conscious about your own workers as an employer. This permission was unnecessary.
Absolutely unnecessary. Anyway, those are of those days you were you may not have been there. We are we were not there. So let us not question it. Now then what happens?
>> Lot of then if lots of comes to page 166 page 166 it's office memorandum.
>> Number A we have seen no more regularization of master ro or similarly placed workers can be undertaken by the state government even if such workers were engaged prior to 1990. one and two lit second law a lot has read B is there no more regularization can be undertaken by creating super post or one day in respect of those workers and emerged prior to 149 but died so that is no creation of super >> therefore we have to be very careful That is something.
This notification was put through.
Unend a single >> yes singleendas was filed by the state and in the openda lordship four division honorable division interfere with the judgment passing single judge and the situation was reversed. Therein court said no direction can be passed for regularization even for those who are appointed prior to 1493 and no consequential benefit like pensions can be granted to them.
So matter stands there.
No regularization, no consequential benefits.
Another notification of 2013.
The policy for regularation we still follows but it is only for those losses who fulfills the three conditions as list down in paragraph 53 of the div judgments that is he engaged prior to prior 10 years prior to date of judgment. He was engaged against a sanctioned vacant post. He is continuing in that force without any protection of inter passed by any court or tribul. If these conditions are fulfilled that we consider their regularation and so far as these petitioners are concerned this is not one only law. So there are so many so many questions from This is against these background notation.
family 21.
So the function says don't in It is nothing.
She's going to open up.
>> Yes.
Firsting lawsuit. This is 2008 10cc lawsuit. 2008 10cc one.
What is his name?
>> This is official.
>> Huh?
>> Official liquidator.
>> Huh?
>> Official liquidator that um judgment will be applicable should be followed by all portion >> only three line doctor will allow me to read only three lines. This is paragraph 75.
>> Give your give your slips.
First four lines.
Then >> uh Mr. Nyak, you give your uh book slip.
In the meantime, we we come back after 5 minutes.
>> In the meantime, he will have the books.
Give your slip. I think you'll be referring to Prem Singh. You'll be referring to Prem Singh also.
>> Singh Prem Singh already has taken care of by >> in Udam in huh >> same whichever book you want.
>> They're coming back in five minutes.
has been seen lots of lots of 2006 4S paragraph 53 has already good leave that we have we have read it number of times you read it out >> one paragraph 50 52 now I'm just reading uh the conclusion in that paragraph Reading four lines, the classical position continues and a mandamus could not be issued in favor of the employees directing the government to make them permanent since the employees cannot show that they have an enforcable right legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the state has a legal duty to make them permanent. That is one conclusion. What if this position has been reiterated in the official liquidity in paragraph 71 >> paragraph 61 >> 6171 >> uh 71 I read office 61 >> 71 official liquid >> 71 71 no 75 >> 75 form >> official liquid >> that is what I'm saying >> that is 75 can be overrun only 61% This is the position in the um in state of Canada.
The constitution can revert it in each attention to financial implication of creation of extra port and held that court should not pass order which impose unwarranted burden on the state and its instrumentalities by directing creation of particular number of post for absorption of employees appointed on ad hoc or temporary basis or as daily roles. So that is the second judgment.
Lord, >> what is name?
This is state of manipur and >> modern state of paragraph seven.
We are of the opinion that the view in view of the constitution and judgment of this court in secretary state of karnataka versus lumadi. This court cannot direct regularization in service since the court has no power to direct regularation. It is it also follows that it has no power to direct grant of benefits payable to the regular employees. That is the one. Next one is Lord.
Next one is 2011 to SCC9.
So the citation Yes.
>> Yes.
>> Paragraph 121 >> citation.
>> Uh this is uh 2011 to sec 429.
>> What is them?
>> State of Rajasthan versus Bal.
>> Which paragraph?
>> Lot of paragraph 12 small one.
The high court in exercising power under article 226 of the constitution will not issue direction for regularization absorption or permanent cons continuence unless the employee claiming regularization has been appointed in pursuance of replacement in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process.
against sanction breaking code.
So that is another one also.
So these are the judgments which I mean primarily indicates that court has no jurisdiction to direct regularization or issue mandamas to the state government directing regularize the service of a particular employer. Lordship then I'm coming to this particular issue lordship one just lordship I'm placing that is civil appeal number 8942020 pension payment of pension >> number from the state I mean from website only comes to paragraph 55 12 paragraph 35 it's page 30 paragraph 34.
>> Yes.
The common thread in the above referred judgments of this court is that pension is a right and not a bond. It is a constitutional right for which an employee is entitled or his superenuation. However, pension can be claimed only when it is a permissible.
It is permissible under the relevant rule or a scheme. If an employee is covered under the pro provident fund scheme and is not holding a pensionable post, he cannot claim pension nor the read court can issue mandamas directing the employer to provide pension to an employee who is not covered under the rules. Now lots will directly come to a judgment which passed by a full b of it has been held that works as not a pension business.
sir which judgment >> uh this is state of which >> I think all this has been discussed in America. Yes, in the subsequent one also I can place but there I have a specific submission of it.
>> There was there was a difference of opinion in Bimi.
>> Yes, which is the last one last full bench judgment on this issue author by your boss.
Yesterday Supreme Court says that lawyers should also show judgments against them.
>> In fact, >> yesterday only.
>> Yes, I had that lot of there in also your say that they have no legal right to resil that disclaimer that it is on grounds of equity.
>> Yes, >> I've said that. So on that point I have to place his husband in that situation whether which is not legally permissible can that be allowed by assuming the >> don't be under any illusion that I have authored one judgment so I will go by that only don't give lots of comes paragraph 13 why I'm showing this judgment lawsuit because the rule discussed there in lawsuit is exactly similar to our one paragraph 31 they say it is not pensionable >> yes but if l comes to the room itself tension.
One, please.
Yes, >> this is rule 152 law and the secretary is temporary government service whether an works as employee is covered by the sector or not the heading is temporary government 152 I'm skipping If lordship comes to the small Roman tree, >> no graduity will be admissible.
Lordship comes to D to one pre from contingency or one belonging to a workers establishment or any other service governed by separate rules or >> yes the sector assam pens assam services pension rule law there is a specific sector of temporary government employees wherein lit workers employees are not covered >> next judgment I'm placing lot this is 2008 2C 310 paragraph 16 this is Punjabs initially it's from Punjab doset therein also the rule is exactly similar to >> name Punjab have it.
>> Uh this is uh paragraph 16.
Yes.
>> The scheme relating to grant of family pension was made under a statute. A person would be entitled to the benefit thereof subject to the statutory interview from their perusal of the provisions contained in the Punjab civil service rule volume two by visav the family pension scheme. It would be evident that the respondent was not entitled to grant of any family pension.
The husband of the respondent was works as employee. His services had never been regularized. It may be unfortunate that he had worked for 11 years. He expired before he could get the benefit of the regularization skill. But sentiments and sympathy alone cannot be ground for taking view of due taking a view different from what is permissible in law. 17. The statutory provisions as as noticed here in EO deer grant of family pension in favor of family members.
As the disease employee was a works as employee and not a permanent employee or temporary employee, the period during which an employee worked as a works as employee could be taken into consideration only when his services are regularized and he becomes a permanent and not other. But this is one lordship next judgment lordship. I'm reading >> Mr. Just just just Mr. Nayak you relied on 152 3 isn't that it >> 3D >> 3D now kindly come to uh 153 2 Why this word is used the the members of because this this relates to temporary government service. No gracity. Now members of works as establishments are not ordinary.
>> Lord there is one rule of assam financial financial rules. lawsuit.
>> There is a provision for payment of extraordinary pension. The whole sector of works as employees is covered by that law.
>> So you also you should also show that >> that is not >> because you are showing 152 treating them to be as a temporary employees but 15232 says specific to works as employees.
>> Yes. Daring lots upon provisions not ordinary. No, not ordinarily is all right. But you must know this and we should also know this.
>> Wound or extraordinary pensions and graduates are however in certain cases admissible in accordance with pension rules.
>> Suppose somebody is wounded or extraordinary pension only for him with no presidential value. All members of the work charge establishment who are not entitled to any pension on their retirement may be granted graduity in the following scale. Um 10 to 20 years 31 years >> exclusion like temporary employees 153 exclud >> huh >> they receive great terminal gra they receive so this is the gra this cover pension and graity he give them after retirement with that terminal graduated and this is by virtue of section 329 of the assign financial motivation. 31 unless this comes from and yes that is there that is a chap I'm coming to uh 2023 1 sec 57 Seven lots of 153 in exclusion to 100. This is only to contingency.
It's exclusion to size for the purpose of us extraordinary depending on. Yes.
Yes.
>> This is Sunita Bman versus Commissioner MP Housing and Development. I'm relying about 2 15 16 and 17 paragraph two Lord >> the admitted fact of this case that 284 1997 Munal Burman husband of the appalent was engaged by respondent one housing board as a master employees on daily basis by the office order detected so and so he was appointed in the war as a serviceman so he was in The plot comes to paragraph 15 16 and 17 paragraph 15 LC as for the decision in PR cited on behalf of the question raised in the same matter relates to validity of rule 38 of the Uttar Pradesh retirement benefits rule 1961 and regularation regulation 370 of the civil services regulation Uttar Pradesh in the backdrop where this court had earlier affformed the decision of the high court of Punjab and Hariana in Kaseran and state of Punjab versus state of Punjabi in relation to parimeia provisions and enacted in the state of Punjab which excluded computation of the period of workers act service from qualifying service for grant of pension at three such bands of this court examined several decisions on this aspect and on purs pursuing a note appended to rule 3A of interpret retirement benefits rule 1961 and regulation 370 of the civil services regulation held death change the service of the appellent in the state case had been regularized on a backend post rule 38 of the recruit determined benefits rule 1961 ought to be read the in respect of the services rendered by him even prior to his regularization and the period spent in the capacity in the capacity of a source employee contingency fee fund employee or non-pensionable establishment employee ought to be counted towards the qualifying service for extending the benefit benefit of pension to such employees. So that was the issue there in premium law. So even paragraph 36 and premium nowhere discussed in that judgment itself also if Lord comes to paragraph 16 the faxitation in the case in hand is entirely different. The disease husband of the appellent had remain remained a walker's employee till the date of his demise of 264 2016 his services had not been regularized. The office order detected so and so relied on by the appellent to urge that the services of the deceased husband of the appellent had been regularized is being mystery. As can be uh discerned from the first paragraph of the state order which states that daily wage master employees working between so and so and name master and there in where being appointed in workers establishment and further that they were where uh the MP worksers and contingency paid employees recruitment and service rule 1997 was made applicable We have noticed above that theory tools were never adopted in by respond number one housing board or extended to its workers and >> cognizant of the back.
All right. Yes. So this is >> in fact I mean >> so relying upon the harana our high court passage in WA one of 2022 that is sequence.
If comes to sag 21 that is the rule 31 paragraph 21 is the rule law. Paragraph 22. The state rule clearly provides a service of an officer does not qualify for pension unless it confirms or up to the three conditions namely the service must be under government. The employment must be substantive and permanent and the service must be paid by the order.
23. Lule 36 of assumption pension rule 1969 provides that service does not qualify unless the officer holds a substantive office on a permanent establishment provided that continuous temporary or officiating service under the government of Assam follow without interruption by confirmation in the same or any other post shall count in full as qualifying service except in respect of period of a period of temporary and officiating service in non-pensionable establish and the rent period of service paid from country 24 in view of of above uh position of law and the decision of the honorable AEX court rendered in Messy we are of the view that the repetitition appalance petitioners are not entitled to pension or any relief as plain in the repetition and no interference is For for the impunient order ded 24th 11 2021 fast learn single J and WC number so and so and the order ded 13 12 to 2021 fast learned single J in W number so and so. So this is a similar case lot where the wife this is employee paid for family pension.
First must be under government. Second employed in a specific kind of service rendered in selfqualified propensation that is with respect to 329 financial 15 cases and subject to suspect individually and subject to as we only subject But this this part is discreet lordship and placing lordship that is one lordship 2022 water.
scale.
Then list But this is with respect to the Nagaland rules >> rule is similar lordship where lordship one >> no rule is not similar. What are you saying?
>> Some pension rules.
>> No not pensions in nagaland there is a service rule for regularation. That is not the issue issue just so that you can clarify the issue. In nibbumi the case was like this the under the nagar rules once a person gets a scale of pay initially they don't then scale of pay after certain period they maintain a seniority list for regularation first scale of pay then based on seniority uh regularization in assumi husband did not his service was not regularized sub he I subsequently his junior was regularized. So she says that I should be my husband service ought to have been regularized. So different paragraph A.
>> No that's all right but the issue is that under regularization policy service of work charged employees were required to be regularized as per seniority.
>> Now as and when the vacancy arose or whatever seniority at the time of the death of the husband of Nishvi Achumi he was not entitled for regularization because there were seniors to him. No, he dies and leaves space for others to take over.
>> In that case, the wife of this employee, she wanted pension even post death for the reason that had he lived, >> he would have become.
>> So he says that no it is not possible.
>> The point I'm trying to emphasize lot is this paragraph 8.
It is required to be noted that the disease employee died in the year 2005.
During his lifetime he never claimed any regularization that a respondent there in original petitioner.
>> That's one of the facts but question is this. Yeah this >> these are the citations and judgment I'm relying upon my submission is that years of the states will be dismissed.
>> My submission would be if the service of the petition were never regularized and for not regularizing his service laws.
If state cannot be blamed because it was only because of the law settled by the honorable Supreme Court or our high court there was it was not a situation before the authority to pursue continue with the policy of regularation.
Secondly lordship for family pension lordship it is the rule only lordship just cannot claim pension or family pension if you claim pension or family pension you have to show the provision of rule lordship there there has to be a right which you are asserting l in this situ in this particular case lordship there is no such rule which provides for grant of family pension to a workers employee whose service has not yet been regularized and thirdly lordship that irrespective of other judgment I'm placing lordship the judgment of that is also a judgment passed by our division judgment in my humble understanding this is binding upon this also also but this is my basic submission let's we have followed but then you are for the respondents in that case >> so let us hear your views may I submit in I don't know how this matter can be tagged along with these matters also but in that matter it's different law >> no different we are not going to that >> we will be we'll be dealing with it separately separately >> because the issues primarily bordered on payment of pension >> or work charge or regular employees.
Therefore, it is yet it is not tagged with this. This requires a separate determination because this is a review file by a state law. So I have to appear in that. So if decides this matter also this is already a 2015 matter after this.
>> No just we are asking what would you like to submit? Now who appears who appears for the petitioner you loing item number six l you have anything to say we asked him to argue first but then if you have anything to say you tell us >> let him submit first >> what let him submit we are asking even this >> if you're not ready we can understand but don't say let him let him submit Please >> we have unnecessarily asked him. Mr. Bakur's case has not been argued.
>> Lord, >> your case has been argued.
>> Lord, in this case, the learn senior council was supposed to appear but he suffering from certain health problems. Lord. So >> senior council lordship lordship suffering from certain health problem.
So given some time lost to next week maybe lost if I cannot do >> but then we see issues are same on issues facts are exactly similar died during without regularization. We want the on principle. He has also facts are not disputed.
>> Only the principle whether we can ask for grant of pension when service family pension.
Yes mate friend has cited the examples of very old cases which are already almost outdated and I I will show your lordship. I have given the citations with your lordship Bord.
First I am telling my story of my case man. I am Lkesher Brahmo.
I was appointed in the year 1992 >> as master worker.
Thereafter after two years I was upgraded to the post of casual chukida works as casual chukida.
Then my pay was also fixed.
I retired in the year 2023 after serving nearly 32 years of service.
Now what my learner friend has said even in their office memorandum there are two memorandums but uh that I will submit later on but first I invite your kindly see the judgments what my friend has said many things about judgment but my lord may kindly see first you have given So >> could you tell us then citation and name?
>> Yes. Now s we have already given the status first 2024 >> INSC 1034 Jago >> name of the party >> name of the parties >> Jago Jgo versus Indian of India >> Jago then in this case my lord there are 12 13 22 25 28 12 first I reading there are 12 despite being labelled as part-time workers the appellants perform this essential task on a daily and continuous basis over the extensive periods ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades.
Their engagement was not especially associated with sanctioned posts.
Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for this tax task during the appearance tenure underscoring the indispensible nature of their work.
Par 13. The claim of the respondents that these were not regular ports lacks merit as the nature of the work performed by the appentance was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the office.
Their recurring nature of these duties necessiates their classification as a regular force irrespective of how their initial engagements were led. It is also not worthy that subsequent outsourcing of the same task to private agencies after they privileged termination demonstrates the inherent need for the services. This act of outsourcing which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further under scores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.
Now 22 the pervasive issues of temporary employ would kindly share this how the honorable Supreme Court has continuously >> the pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts as exemplified in this case reflects a broader systematic issue. that adversely affects workers rise and job security in the private sector. The rise of geek economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements often characterized by lack of benefits, job security and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers uh and and undermining labor standards.
Government institutions entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitive employment practices.
When public sector entities engage in v issues of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the Greek economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
Then lordship could see press error 25.
It is disconerting concerning reality that temporary employees practically in government's in institutions often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the fun foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to uh employees. These practices manifest in several ways.
Misuse of temporary levels. Employees engaged for work. What is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often leveled as temporary or contractual even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such miscell classification deprivives the workers of the dignity, security and benefits that regular employees are entitled to despite performing identical works, identical tasks. Then law would come after three paragraphs. Daniel of basic rights and benefits. Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health in insurance.
So my lord so that here's judgment has been totally for totally not followed at all and honorable subunar has given very long range of issues have been raised and it is said the exploitation of the employees cannot be permitted. So they were granted pensionary benefits with all other benefits. This is the J. Then she would kindly come to instead of Gujarat and others only one in this case.
It is unfortunate that the state continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that all the service rendered by respondents are ad hoc. He is not entitled to pension pensionary benefit. The state cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong to take the services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continuous service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable as a welfare state. The state as such ought not to have taken such a stand. In the present case, the high court has not committed any error in directing the state to pay bansionary benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service.
So very clear instruction, very clear mandate of the law. Then my lord I'm coming and my lord says also one judgment my lord was a part I have not brought today in partner court full judgment my my lord the s justice was the party I have not brought today but because I have brought so many judgments of the supreme court my lord yes yes my lord yes my friend has helped me uh Here your worship the was a party full.
>> No I was a member of the bench not a party.
>> Sorry. Sorry. Yes. Sleep of time >> still alive.
It is your judgment full provided by full judgment of the honorable a lot of judgment. I have 20 more than 20 judgments.
>> I have more than 20 judgments who support the pension and benefits to be given. I have to six judgments includ if it is included then it will be seven and those are recent judgments and my friend has sent the old All right.
Please just something.
Okay.
Yes.
Notation best condition.
I didn't ch Are you sure We'll resume at 2 2 15 past 2.
I'll be going to that building for a meeting and then come back.
>> I have many other judgments other What do you want? You want an early date.
>> Mention at 4:00 when we are rising.
We'll see.
>> Mention at 4. Mention at at a time when we are rising. Finally for the day.
We'll consider Yes, my lords. I continuing my arguments.
I draw a lot of kind attention now to 2024 INSC 621 Ras currency and others versus Union of India and others here my lord may see par 30 that that was the argument of ASG then court is observing like that par 35 having the arguments of both the sides this court believes that the essence of employment and rights of right thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over The continuous service of the appentence in the capacities of regular employees >> performing duties in distinct indag >> okay >> but later on par five may be seen >> having heard the arguments of Both the sides that does this court believe that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indisting indistinguishable from those in permanent course and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and temporary and risk. a specific nature of their initial engagement.
Moreover, the appearance promotion process was conducted and overseen by the by a departmental promotional committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles. being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified merits a reconsideration of their employment status.
>> Correct. Correct.
>> Six. The application of the judgment in Umadi Supra by the high court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand given specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights >> that have occurred over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and subsequent circular followed by this.
Then lost you may kindly say para 31.
>> Yes.
>> 31 as held in binatumar supra. The essence of employment and the rise thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. This court fully associates with this principle and finds it wholly applicable in the present case especially in the in light of the administrative orders and board proceedings referred to supra that have consistently treated the appealants as equivalent to regular government employees. The mayor classification of employees as temporary or permanent is not merely a matter of normal gesture but carries significant legal implications particularly in terms of service benefits and protections. In the present case, the totality totality of circumstances indicates that they spread their formal classification as temporary employees. The appence employment be substantial hallmarks of regular government service. The denial of pensionary benefits solely on the basis of their temporary status without due consideration of those of these factors appears. to be an oversimplification of their employment relationship with the government. This approach runs the risk of creating >> we have seen this >> so have seen then I draw your law kind attention to our high court's own judgment of versus Angel Act 2024 1 NLJ 384 by our high court division recently 24th uh that was passed by my lord justice Robin Fukan and justice buddhi >> recent order our division order >> my repeatedly reiterated case but it is judgment here my lord would kindly See par 21 >> the nagaland rules were different you can leave the rules principle same integration into service we have understood the principles >> but kindly you will go the para 21 29 and 33 then would see there are many similarities and that was rejected by the l but later on division satisfied the order of the London single judge and asked to pay pension benefits to the affected average. It is under the Nagaland regulation for regulation they are handing their own regulation certain criteria scale of pay and seniority of >> but the ratio of the case is that is by only >> then 2002 to sec 420 parad That is a question.
It was question.
It is impermissible for the high court to overrule the decision of the ax code on the ground that the Supreme Court laid down the legal position without considering any other point. It is not only a matter of discipline for the high courts in India.
It is the mandate of the constitution as provided in article 141 that the law declared by the supreme court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. It was pointed out by this court >> that has already been official liquidator Mr. May has already relied on.
>> Yes. That means sometimes they may say that this judgment is not applicable but those later on judgments has great implications in this case. Then Lord sayal and others versus Gaja.
Yes. This is huh >> the respondent employer may >> yes subsequent >> the respondent employer places reliance on so you contend that the daily which paragraph >> paragraph 14 1/4 again this judgment judgment has been stated here which by friends has repeatedly said but here lordship can be seen paraph 14 respondent employer places reliance on supra so and so to contract that daily wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the ass in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, um itself distinguishes between appointments that are illegal and those are >> Yes.
>> Uh illegal and those are irregular.
illegal and irregular those sources the letter being eligible for regularization if they must they meet certain conditions more importantly um we cannot serve >> all right Mr. M so therefore you are relying on Jago Rajkaran Vinod and Swipa.
>> Yes >> correct.
>> So Lubi here I have also given this short note in the morning before the B.
So my lord these are the three important judgments which all are later judgments and lordships are aware that later judgments will prevail over the earlier judgments and law is the last voice of the last judge.
Yes ma'am to subject to correction law is the last voice last order passed by the last judge >> that's a that's a very that's a very controversial kind of a statement over which we would not like to comment >> it is >> normally the principle is that the judgment first in point of time on an issue prevails unless overruled >> or modified or recited my lord I will say other judgments larger strength is more important. In my book I have inserted but one I have got two offish.
>> Which book have you written?
>> In my book I have written some judgments >> in your book. Which book?
>> This is the book.
>> You have written it.
>> Yes I have written.
>> Just have can can I have a look at it?
Look, >> I may give you >> I will give two copies to your watch as well.
What does >> What is Mr. M? My Hindi degree went out.
>> Yes. From Maharashtra.
>> And what is FM?
>> FM that is Arabic degree.
>> Arabic degree.
>> Arabic degree.
>> Yes. It is obtained from assam board of madasa assam at Shilam.
At that time it was in Shilam.
All right. Yes.
>> I will give two books to your lordships.
It is my personal copy.
Uh now my lord we have got two office orders.
>> Actually I have got extra copies and that is 12th September 1996 and another is uh 6th September 2003.
I am reading the operative posture. The government ser now uh government servant uh who retires after rendering temporary service of not less than 20 years under the government without being confirmed.
Don't this in any post is to be allowed the pensionary benefits as available to a retiring confirmed government employees. I asked my L friend Mr. Nay whether it is withdrawn. He said that no it is not withdrawn.
>> Very specific.
>> So I am giving this then the same thing has been reiterated in 2003 that in contam so and so that is earlier office memorandum is quoted. It is reiterated that the official clearly lays down that a government servant rendering 20 years of continuous service without being confirmed shall be eligible for pensionary benefits.
>> Government service government servant >> government service.
>> Now whether we should be treated as government servant because we always teach the duties like a government servant number one. Secondly, without >> without any break of a single day, my lord without a break of a single day continuously 30 almost 32 years service considered this the the problem with you is that uh Mr. Nyak has made a statement that you are you are neither serving on a on a sanctioned post nor vacant post nothing that is the only hurdle >> well that there is a judgment of the honorable >> what judgment could be there >> yes >> now that that part of um Dvi can't be diluted >> oh no honorable said in one judgment that burative delay in providing something which ought to have been given to the person that will not deny the justice to that person.
Suppose my lord I render nearly 32 years of service.
In between they proposed my name. They brought me under regular.
In my case I have Loki Loki Shri Brahmo.
My case was regularized. My post was regularized but later on they say that it is canled. But that cancellation order >> it is there I am.
to pray.
>> I have annexed the order. I have annexed the daughter. So I my post was brought under regular CAD and that was cancelled later on by them but it was not communicated to me. So that is violation of principle of national justice. Something has given to me but taken away without my knowledge.
No copy is furnished to me. So that is a question that is a lordship would kindly see and we are poor employees that >> as long as you were in service why did you not question this I mean this is these are questions which can come up against you why did you not question that >> yes I have filed representation that bring my post to regular I have annexed that >> questioning the decision that these are few hurdles otherwise things are in your favor I mean prime facai we find that you were though of course you were labeled as work charge but for all practical purposes your appointment was permanent but it was not against a vacant post sanctioned post number one that's a big hurdle for you Mr. Mammu.
Uh number two that you never challenged it.
>> Representation is not what we take notice of.
You should have questioned.
>> But that was not communicated to me. My lord when I retired then it came to my knowledge. That is not >> they said they said this mistake there could be some justification or some semblance of truthfulness in this for the reason that there was no military disadvantage to you. You were getting all pay everything but >> that is in this old days my lord after 32 years of service a man becomes too old to >> what do you have to say that you did not have a service book it was only service role which does not tell you the details it only tells you how many days you have worked since when you have worked whether there is a break or whether is no whether there is no break >> they have not say that there is a break they have not said >> no No, we are not saying that >> there is a service role or service book where we show us you show us that President Mahmud what we are telling you we are not we are not opposing your case for the moment. We are only telling you that these are the parameters on which it is tested whether you were an employee and your employment parttook the character of a permanent or for that matter temporary employee who needs to be given all the benefits.
Correct. So there are there are the continuity of service is is not what is being disputed. You were the question is that you remained a a master role worker and thereafter work charge.
>> Yes.
>> Worker and >> then regularized my post was regularized then cancelled without my knowledge.
>> Therefore we'll take it that without your knowledge it's all right. But it was cancelled.
These are two things which go against you otherwise everything I mean the major ground which is in your favor is that you have worked without break and you got pay you got everything everything >> pay was also fixed school was also fixed >> everything increment >> and my lord what my service >> where is your service role or service book >> my lord that is of course I have whether it is prepared or not but one >> no no in the repetition that there should be a copy because you have pleaded that specifically >> regarding service my lord that is also a matter I wanted to attention.
Who will prepare absence of presence or >> where have you stated that it was regularized but cancelled and you were not noticed?
>> Yes, I had.
Say that effect.
I posted the regular on regular page 32 and it is cancelled in Excel 5 >> page 30 repeat page 32 >> 32 yes >> in pursuance of the additional ship engineers letter number so and so dated 201180 >> and subject to the approval of the secretary to the government of asham PWD department this goati The services of the following works are so who have completed more than five years continuous service as on 31 11 1999 against their names are hereby brought to regular cader under this division with effect from 1299 1999 in the scale of pay of rups 2450 50.
This order may stand cancelled if the government of Assam PWD does not accord necessary approval.
>> This issued by whom?
>> This has been issued by >> executive engineer.
That was that that we don't take into account for the reason that it was this letter was by an authority who was not competent to recognize it has to be government and number two it was conditional on government sanction.
>> So it it was not cancelled simplicity it was because of the absence of sanctions.
So it will be assumed to have no existence at all at any point of time.
>> You read this cancellation order that will copy has been given to me.
>> Forget about that. You read the next page cancellation.
>> Yes sir. S that is not >> it's not here. It is subject to the confirmation of sanction. It is so we will consider it to be non-existent.
>> Now my lord I have a legitimate very important ground in your favor. But then it is non non-existent.
The executive can't pass an order.
>> I have a legitimate expectation that when my was brought under regular >> don't stress too far legitimate expectation cannot be against law.
>> Many legitimate expectation already Mr. Mohammed you're arguing on the correct track. You are on a correct track. Don't divert. See legitimate expectation principle you can't import here. Pension and pensionary benefits are governed by law. If you're entitled to it, you are entitled to it. There's no legitimate expectation here. I have annexed another order 51 of my retator who are cooperating with me >> that is pick and >> that Mr. Mahmud is admitted you know that is what that is >> feet and shoes >> try try and understand that is what >> that is what is making us you know look at it from I mean we are >> uh we are doing all this postmortem and we are analyzing it in such detail only for the reason that you know the department had thought of regularizing the government had come up with a circular all must master role workers All work child establishment people they they would be regularized. For some reason or the other your name did not find mention in that list proposed by the department which was later understood to be an oversight and thereafter they made some attempts but before anything could happen you died.
>> No no he retired. Oh that's not good. But you retired.
>> Yes I retired. And you've never questioned it.
Your wife questions it only when she doesn't get the family pension. I myself all >> my lord one sing my lord they do not like your strong point is jaguan rajkar and bin >> why do you why do you want then I I hope believe that your lordship definitely would considered there are hundreds of people who are now lying in bed one um aletri I have many 15 cases of this type the umalri he is on that bed now he telephones me from bed what I can do >> forget about >> so our hope is before you >> are They are exploiting us and it is not my word. It is the word of the Supreme Court that casual workers work as workers cannot be used and as a tool of exploitation.
>> So my lord lordship would kindly consider this aspect also.
>> We are what do you why why do you think we are looking at it in such great detail? We are doing it >> and I may when there are also Supreme Court has also said that when there is no law but in the mind of the honorable court appears that it is in his justice then even court may provide justice here I I may show the citation of the honorable Supreme Court >> 2006 one SEC >> 479 Mil note down >> 2006 1 sec 479 para 36 37 and 64 UP state uh brushware corporation limited and others versus Udo Pand >> here honorable said that court always need not for any statute to provide substantial justice If the fact circumstances say that this person is in entitled to get some benefit then court should provide that without having any statement.
So this is one of the uh classic example and moreover my lord regarding uh the case judicial discipline is an important maxim of law and the declaration of law by supreme court cannot be forsaken under any pitex within the territory of India by any authority or court including hiking that is reported in 2004 5C 568 par 6 of Dhani Ram Lhari.
So there are and cannot track the benefit of their own mistake. Now in my case I have said I have annexed or ordered similarly situated employee who were appointed with me or later than me.
They have been picked up and they are regularized. They are getting every person after retirement but I am I have been denied. So my face is not good for them. They are their face is good for them. So that cannot be instead cannot discriminate within the similarly situated employees. They must say in one voice they cannot differ here and there.
>> All right.
>> So my lord would kindly consider all these aspects.
>> All right. Who else?
In my case, your lordship to cabinet decision dated 227 2005 they have started process of regularization of master of workers.
Now our names were left out your laws in the process. Your lords may kindly come to please 35 of my appeal. Your lordship >> appeal your lordship.
There is a letter when we were left out.
Then in on 23 to 2006 a letter was sent by the director siculture to the commissioner and secretary to goasam subject the subject regularization of drop tammer under director of sic culture assam with reference to go letter number cited above. I have the honor to resubmit the proposal for regularization of dropped hammer lever engage prior to 1493. These names have been dropped due to type typing mistakes during the process of regularization.
Now our names were dropped due to typing mistake but they did not do anything or ourselves. Therefore, we came before this honorable court and honorable court when we filed a petition dismissed our red petition order at a 191 2009 which is available at page 62 of the appial laws and on the ground that in the meanwhile J10 Kita's judgment has been passed and therefore we are not entitled to regularize then we filed a review petition Now review order which is your lordship will find it at 111. Our petition was allowed saying that Janita >> review p >> review page 111 >> saying that jitan kolita will not cover our case. In fact will not cover so much after the >> my lord I humbly request I have a met would be here.
>> Thank you. Thank you.
>> G10 kita your lordship that review order was review is allowed and we are directed to be regulars. Then they prefer an IIA seeking review at that particular order. the state the court says that this is not the appropriate application then it is it was dismissed then they come with the review petition again your lordship and that is uh in 2013 and that review petition was ultimately on 13 2013 was dismissed then they come before this honorable court >> that last review order p >> that review order your lordship will find that imp 187 now your lordship may kindly see det Kolita for a moment. I have three copies here also.
And your lordship will find the date of judgment of Kolita was 175 2006 and our pro regularizations process has started prior to that and in year and this is pursuant to a cabinet decision your worship and zitan kita was a decision your lordship in which the office memorandum that 1995 was put to challenge and so far as this cabinet decision is concerned in par 23 of the 10 kita this honorable court has held full banks another may I read your >> yes yes >> another significant fact which cannot escape our notice is the cabinet decision that a 227205 for regularization of master role work charge employees engage prior to 14193 as mentioned in the affidavit of chief secretary dated 14th November 2005 and the follow-up decision of the state government to create about 30,000 post in grade four category to accommodate the regularization in question while it is not for us to speculate as to why a fresh cabinet decision had to be taken on lines largely similar to what have been referred to in the office memorandum the 24 1995.
It would perhaps not be incorrect to observe that necessity for a fresh cabinet decision in the matter only fortifies our view recorded earlier that office memorandum that 24195 does not reflect a valid policy decision of the state. However, as neither the appropriate cabinet decision that 227205 has been challenged before us nor any effective employees has sought for its enforcement, we do not consider it prudent to record our views on the validity or correctness of the forced decision dated 227205.
Neither the manner of implementation of this decision is a question that has been raised before us. In such circumstances, we make it clear that we express no opinion on the legality or validity of the cabinet policy decisions that 227205.
Nor do we feel it necessary to see any advisories on the correct manner of the execution and implementation of the state cabinet policy decision 227 2005.
Therefore your lordship this zitan kolita cannot cover my case and the plea they have taken in the appeal is that since zitan kolita has in the meanwhile come our cases cannot be regularized no direction can be issued by this honorable court for regularization of the case your ultimately your since it was a typographical error for their fault the rest of all the other employees were given the benefit of regularization Mr. You when will you do that the other question?
>> Item 15 uh this this court's case >> this is also an item item I mean petition filed by the state itself.
>> Ah that's why when will you argue this?
You said that you have some >> suppress this subsequent forwarding of name loit by the department 10 departments. No, that we understand. You said that somebody else or you are arguing in this case that period.
>> No, we we are taking we are granting you time.
>> You argue that yes, we'll deal with it separately.
This you finished lot before vacation.
This is called W number 156 of 2025.
We have heard.
>> Yes.
No. This is in number 156h.
Yes. Next >> item number nine.
Nothing remains to be done. 23 clarified.
>> Where is where is the other concept?
>> Mr. >> It comes tomorrow or day after tomorrow.
for tomorrow.
>> Tomorrow is the last it comes on Monday.
>> Monday next Monday.
>> Okay. Uh let this matter come up for consideration on the date on Monday.
>> 25 item 10 to 13.
>> Okay.
Contraction.
They say that they have been appointed.
They have not been given the scale of regulatory.
Yes.
Where is education?
You are seeking quashing of 2024 rules.
>> Yes. But there are two sets of malard cases are there.
>> Yeah. Our petitioners taken up >> matter may be taken up >> some other difficulty.
Next week for the absence of the Mr. KNAR for the absence of Mr. London Standing Council Education Department >> School Education Department.
The set of these set of these 11 these are 11th of June 18th of June.
Item 23 to25.
>> Yes. What has happened?
>> What has happened now?
>> They have virtually rendered all these repetitions in >> Yes.
>> This is a classic case where that famous comes into play that the operation is successful. Patient died. completed. The stay was granted on merit after hearing.
>> Now what has happened? The work is completed.
>> As far as I >> reception work is completed but the contempt is also filed. They have filed a contempt petition.
>> This is just to save their officials from the contempt. That is this is the sole purpose of this need.
We understand this but then uh be an academic exercise melodism nothing else no fruitful nothing is going to I don't want the judicial time to be unnecessary me because work is over everything is done and even my clients also might not fairly submitting lost interest in this case only because my name is appearing therefore it's my duty to appear as an appress You're right. It's a classic case where that only because of that stay entire thing has become infracturous.
>> I got a stay in the month of October 2021. They despite the stay they proceeded with the work with their my lord uh the contractor whom they choose to uh issue the work order. Thereafter the read petition was allowed in 2022 December they they filed a read petition with a condonation of delay after 3 months. After 6 month they uh they got in state admittedly for six month their official were under contract. Admittedly the records were no submission is required.
My humble sation is bid was rightly rejected me that I will argue the technical bit was rightly rejected.
It was not a case of bid evaluation which was me which has been held by the single judge.
But what will happen in between even if we hold that this was rightly done then contempt will proceed on >> this has already been stri >> yes sir 23 24 25 >> one of the BN B24 Union of India.
some What's the option?
work we have heard Mr. H Gupta CGC yeah >> the lettered CGC and Mr. Miswas for the for the appellant and Mr. I am Biswas learned advocate for the respondents.
The case relates to a tender dispute between the Indian railways and the respondents.
The firm of the respondent number two was earlier a sole proprietorship which later was which later became an LLP.
A tender was issued in the year 2021 for three major earthworks, bridge and embankment construction on the new BG railway line in Asam.
The respondents had participated in the tender, but their technical bid was rejected for the respondents not meeting the financial eligibility requirement.
of having received contractual payments in the last three financial years along with current year which would be equal to at least 150% of of the tender value as required by as required uh under the tender documents.
Oops. Next. Such rejection was challenged by the respondents by three petitions claiming that the tender clauses were misinterpreted by the appellents herein and the past credentials of the respondents were wrongly ignored.
Mr. It was thus urged on behalf of the respondents that the rejection of the technical bid was unfair more so for the reason of there having quoted a price which was much lower.
The repetitions were allowed and it was directed that the appellent ought to re-evaluate the financial eligibility of the respondent by taking into account its full credentials.
up to 13 to 2020 instead of limiting it only to the incorporation date of 94 2017.
It was directed by the RIT court that in case after a redo of the entire exercise if the respondents were found to have found to have satisfied Okay. The financial eligibility criteria and the price and the rates and the price quoted by it is lower comma the remaining work must be handed over to them.
This was pro this these this judgment of the red court was promptly put to challenge by the railways by the unit by by the appellents on the ground that the lended single judge mis misinterpreted the clear wordings of clauses 9 and 10 of the tender document.
And that such order would and that such adjudication would only cause prejudice to the already selected lowest bidders who had started their work.
It would also hold important public railway projects.
The judgment of the single judge was state.
This court has been informed that in the meanwhile the work allotted to the conscious ners have now been completed and the matter now remains only academic.
In that view of the matter, we consign this appeal for the reason that the work in question has already been completed and there will be no use agitating the issues in the present of people.
content is content is not huh >> he's talking he's mentioning about the content I said content is not before the court >> but >> if he doesn't understand this we are not here to tell him you can always say before the content court that this is over >> now we are not going to tell you what to say what to do Mr. Das please don't make a statement otherwise we are so unhappy with this >> dasupta >> Gupta Mr. Sorry Mr. We are referring to you. I think my my vision is at you. No >> my lord. My lord.
>> So Mr. Gupta I'm sorry not Mr. Das otherwise we are unhappy at the manner in which it was the order was flouted.
>> Let us close it here.
>> Let us close it here. Don't ask us to do anything else.
I'm >> the the appeal stands disposed of according >> item.
Yes.
The matter has become infert because we have been informed by the department that the entire tender process which is the subject of the process has been wrong.
>> Yes Lord I'm appearing on behalf of Mr. each >> today he's unable to he has got >> but it was it was the last discussion you said that they will have instruction whether they are further going to proceed so this order says to have a fresh tender they are saying they are not going for tender m >> take instructions and withdraw this >> lord he has >> with the liberty in case they retender you will participate >> took place at his hometown lord so last year.
He just me saying this side allow you take instructions in the matter. This appeal has become infectuous on account of their disclosure that the site the the question the area where where shop were were put to tender they have abandoned that project they say that they are not going to do it now then >> so >> why do we get into all this >> and and >> take instructions and ask him you see you take telephonic instructions from >> and come back to us next week >> to withdraw.
>> He will remain present on our next day to >> Okay. All right. As prayed for on behalf of the renotify on when >> Okay. Next week, next Tuesday. Next week in the columning under >> all right under under the heading orders on 5th of June on 5th of June.
is also because I think >> I think the there was some difficulty the AG was uh he had some plans of uh visiting abroad and there are others. So >> June 11th though we have we have kept it in first week there was some difficulty >> remain sarm as per consent of both the parties as you also has some difficulty.
He had it informed to me.
>> He should have but then if he did not do you can ask him.
>> It was very difficult to come in way since 2024 this case this case has >> you come from which place I am from 700 700 m from not even in this court only.
disciples is going on in this way. My lord maybe my lord you do one thing you talk to the lawyers and come together we will have we'll prep because in their absence might give the consent that I shall inform you not inform them again because we'll prepone the date and then on that date time no lawyer would be available we will they'll have to adjourn it let it remain Mr. someone next date.
Videos Relacionados
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
Jury seated in the Frisco Track Meet stabbing trial — opening statements set for tomorrow
Wfaa8
343 views•2026-06-03
Monkton family worries husband who murdered wife could inherit all of her assets
WMAR2news
152 views•2026-06-02
They Dismissed Every Black Juror in the Karmelo Anthony Trial — Every Single One
Tim_Black
406 views•2026-06-04
ترمب وأسواق المال الأميركية.. كيف أنعش "رأسمالية المطلعين"؟ - شرق غرب
AsharqBusiness
282 views•2026-06-04
Suno and MP3.com - Is History Repeating itself?
musictechinfo
150 views•2026-06-05
