| CITATION | [Civil Appeal No. 6027 of 2014] |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | September 20, 2023. |
| COURT | Supreme court of India |
| APPELLANT | Samir Kumar Majumder |
| RESPONDENT | Union of India & Ors |
| BENCH | K.V. Viswanathan, J. |
INTRODUCTION
“Samir Kumar Majumder Vs. Union of India & Ors.,2014 ” is a notable legal case that took place in the Indian judicial system. The case involves Samir Kumar Majumder as the appellant, and the Union of India as the respondent. The case is related to legal disputes or matters involving the Union of India and Individuals represented by Samir Kumar Majumder. The year 2014 signifies the year in which the case was heard or decided by the relevant court.
Samir Kumar Majumder, the appellant, was a school teacher at the Railway Higher Secondary School, Alipurduar Junction. He taught mathematics to the school children. He challenged a judgment of the High Court at Calcutta that denied him absorption as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section and rejected his claim for continuity in service.
Facts of the Case:
Samir Kumar Majumder was initially appointed as a Substitute Teacher on 05.12.1989. His service had several interruptions due to terminations and reappointments.
Fearing further interruptions in his service, Samir filed an application (O.A. No. 209 of 1990) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, seeking to set aside termination letters and regularization of his service.
The Tribunal dismissed his application on 31.10.1994, relying on its previous decision that substitute teachers could not claim regularization as a matter of right and that selection by the Railway Recruitment Board was essential for regular appointment.
Several similar cases, including one involving Smt. Jayasree Deb Roy (Dutta), was brought to the Court. These cases resulted in an order stating that the appellants were entitled to absorption on a regular basis without facing selection by the Railway Recruitment Board.
The appellant’s case, C.A. No. 3557 of 1996, was disposed of by this Court on 15.02.1996, allowing one opportunity for consideration for regular selection by giving age bar relaxation.
Subsequently, the appellant was appointed as a Primary Teacher (Bengali Medium) on 02.01.1998.
The appellant filed an Original Application (O.A. No. 978 of 1998) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, raising several grievances regarding his pay scale and entitlement to continuity of service.
The Tribunal and the High Court rejected his claims, leading to his appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issues Raised:
1. Whether the appellant is entitled to be absorbed as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section.
2. Whether the appellant is entitled to a higher pay scale and allowances.
3. Whether the appellant is entitled to continuity of service as per the Master Circular dated 29.01.1991.
Contentions of Appellant:
1. The appellant argued that he should have been absorbed as an Assistant Teacher and was wrongly appointed as a Primary Teacher.
2. He claimed that he should receive the pay scale and allowance admissible to the post of Assistant Teacher Grade-I.
3. 1He contended that he acquired temporary status after three months of continuous service and should be granted continuity of service as per the Master Circular.
Contentions of Respondent:
1. The respondents argued that the appellant was initially appointed as a substitute primary teacher, and his claim for absorption as an Assistant Teacher was unjustified.
2. They defended the absorption order as a Primary Teacher, stating that the appellant was never appointed as an Assistant Teacher.
3. The authorities claimed that the appellant was not entitled to continuity of service as there was no specific order from the Supreme Court in his case.
Judgment:
1. The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment.
2. The Court held that the appellant should be granted continuity of service as per the Master Circular dated 29.01.1991, from the date of obtaining temporary status. This would entitle him to a higher pay scale and allowances, which should be reworked and paid with interest.
3. The appellant’s superannuation benefits should also be reworked accordingly.
4. The Court rejected the appellant’s claim for absorption as an Assistant Teacher, as he was initially appointed as a substitute primary teacher.
Conclusion:
In the case of Samir Kumar Majumder vs. Union of India & Ors., the appellant’s claim for absorption as an Assistant Teacher was rejected, but he was granted continuity of service with associated benefits as per the Master Circular. The judgment clarified the appellant’s rights and entitlements based on his service history and the applicable circulars and orders.
REFERENCE
- https://indiankanoon.org
- https://www.courtkutchehry.com/,
- Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226
- Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 — Rule 3(i), Rule 3(ii), Rule 3(iii), Rule 3(2)(ii)
- Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 — Rule 9
- Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 — Section 7, Section 7(3A)
This Article is written by Jaishree Sharma student of Rajasthan University, Jaipur; an Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
