HYDERABAD: The High Court will not appreciate if its orders are not implemented in letter and spirit by the parties concerned. Once a direction by way of a writ order is issued by the court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it has to be obeyed and implemented in letter and spirit without any reservation.
In the present case, the petitioner was once again made to approach the High Court for the same relief for the reason that the respondent authority failed to implement the order of the court in letter and spirit.
The petitioner, a graduate, along with three other individuals, joined the service of a university in 1989 as junior assistant on daily wage basis. The services of the other three individuals were regularised with effect from 1989, but the petitioner’s services were not.
When he moved the High Court, it allowed his petition and directed the university to regularise the petitioner’s services with all consequential benefits on a par with the other similarly- placed persons whose services had been regularised.
Though he was originally engaged in 1988, his services were not regularised as there was a break in service on certain alleged irregularity. As the allegations were later found to be false, the petitioner was also entitled to be treated on a par with other employees, the court noted.
Despite the said orders of the court, the petitioner’s services were regularised only with effect from 1993.
Aggrieved, he again filed a writ petition before the High Court stating that the university did not take into consideration his service of four years prior to 1993 and that, therefore, great prejudice and hardship was caused to him and that he was not in a position to even get sufficient pension benefits.
The case of the university was that the petitioner did not have the required continuous service of five years as daily wage worker whereas the other three individuals with whom he was comparing himself had continuous services and they were regularised in the scheme formulated by the government. The petitioner’s services were regularised only in view of the earlier orders of the High Court and a regular time scale was given to him accordingly.
In fact, the petitioner gave an undertaking and entered into an agreement with the university and was, therefore, not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Therefore, he cannot compare his case with that of the other individuals and the university was justified in regularising his services from 1993, the university argued.
Justice M Seetharama Murti has said that in the face of the writ orders of the High Court, when the petitioner was entitled to the relief granted, the undertaking given by him and the agreement entered into pale into insignificance and do not disentitle him to the relief already granted and now being claimed by him once again in the present petition in view of the non-implementation of the said orders by the university in letter and spirit. It is manifest that the university is not entitled to deny the relief to petitioner by raising the same contentions which were considered and rejected by the court in its earlier order.
“This court is of the considered view that when once a direction by way of writ order was issued by this court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. The earlier orders cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the court or on the alternate plea that the writ orders are nullified on account of the petitioner giving an undertaking or entering into an agreement with the university. Upholding of such defence would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the university has no force and must be rejected,” the judge observed while allowing the writ petition.