{"id":8584,"date":"2006-03-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006"},"modified":"2017-02-01T10:00:30","modified_gmt":"2017-02-01T04:30:30","slug":"avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006","title":{"rendered":"Avas Vikas Sansthan & Anr vs Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers … on 28 March, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Avas Vikas Sansthan & Anr vs Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers … on 28 March, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: . A Lakshmanan<\/div>\n
Bench: H.K. Sema, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5302 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nAvas Vikas Sansthan & Anr.               \t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nAvas Vikas Sansthan Engineers Assn. & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/03\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nH.K. Sema & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nWITH<\/p>\n
C.A. Nos. 5303, 5305-5308, 5309-5311, 5312-5316,
\n5317-5322, 5323-5327, 5328-5330, 5331-5336,
\n5337, 5339, 5342-5348, 5349-5351, 5352-5354,
\n5356, 5357-5359, 5360-5365, 5366-5370, 5371-5376,
\n5377-5381, 5382-5385, 5386-5392 of 2004<\/p>\n
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.\n<\/p>\n
This batch of appeals arise from the common final
\njudgment and order dated 03.05.2002, passed by the High Court
\nof Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special
\nAppeal No. 315\/2002 etc. etc. in S.B.C.W.P. No. 1750\/99 etc.
\netc. whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal of the
\nappellants-herein by holding that the employees (respondents)
\nare entitled to reemployment and the various reliefs claimed by
\nthem.\n<\/p>\n
Since all the appeals involve common question of law, they
\nhave been heard together with the consent of concerned parties
\nand are being disposed of by this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
Facts in brief:\n<\/p>\n
Avas Vikas Sansthan (in short ‘the AVS’) was registered as
\na Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on
\n17.11.1988.  The AVS was brought into existence to achieve
\ncertain objectives.  The objects of the society were to collect
\ninformation regarding low cost technology for construction of
\nhouses, undertake field studies for development of appropriate
\nlow cost building materials, undertake construction works,
\nimparting practical training etc. in the State of Rajasthan.\n<\/p>\n
The AVS was brought into existence as a result of the
\nScheme formulated by the Housing and Urban Development
\nCorporation, New Delhi, to set up chain of building centres in
\nthe State of Rajasthan.\n<\/p>\n
Appellant No.2  the Rajasthan Housing Board sanctioned
\na sum of Rs. 1-5 lakhs per building centre and provided land
\nfree of cost for setting up of 9 such centres in Rajasthan. The
\nAVS was to raise its own resources; the State Government or the
\nRajasthan Housing Board did not have any control over the AVS.
\nThe AVS had employed the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The AVS started functioning in the year 1989, but in the
\nyear 1997, it began to incur heavy losses and could not pay its
\nemployees their salaries after 01.12.1998.  The Rajasthan
\nGovernment decided that, in view of the financial and
\nadministrative conditions of the AVS, it should be dissolved and
\nthe State Government directed the appellant-the Rajasthan
\nHousing Board to take immediate steps to liquidate the AVS.
\nThe State Government also directed that the employees of the
\nAVS would be adjusted on priority on the vacant posts of
\nMunicipal Boards, Municipal Councils, Jaipur Development
\nAuthority and other local bodies whenever posts fell vacant on
\nthe retirement of the employees of such local bodies.  By the
\nresolution of the AVS dated 26.03.1999, the AVS was dissolved.\n<\/p>\n
The respondents (employees), feeling that their services
\nmight be terminated, filed a writ petition in the High Court on
\n26.03.1999, made the following averments:
\n?\tAVS is only an agent of the State Government of Rajasthan
\nand of the Rajasthan Housing Board.\n<\/p>\n
?\tThe services of the respondents, who were employees of the
\nState Government\/Rajasthan Housing Board, could not be
\nterminated by the Rajasthan Housing Board or the State
\nGovernment or the AVS and
\n?\tAlso if any termination order be passed it be quashed and
\nthey might be retained in service with benefit of their past
\nservices in all respects.\n<\/p>\n
?\tThe Government order dated 15.03.1999 was challenged by
\nwhich the respondents were to be taken in service by local
\nbodies viz. Panchayat, J.D.A. etc at the lowest grade of
\nservices without any benefit of past services.
\nAVS terminated the services of all its 46 daily wage
\nemployees on 31.03.1999.\n<\/p>\n
On 01.06.1999, State Government issued an order which
\ncontained directions regarding the manner in which the
\nemployees of the AVS would be given first appointment in the
\nlocal self-Government institutions in Rajasthan without benefit
\nof past service. The condition, which was put by the Government
\nwas that, they would be given employment on the lowest post of
\npay drawn in AVS of direct recruitment and on the minimum of
\nthe grade and no benefit of past service would be given to them.
\nAn option was also given to the employees to retire under
\nVoluntary Retirement Scheme, if they so desired.\n<\/p>\n
The Rajasthan Housing Board and the State Government of
\nRajasthan contested the writ petitions by filing replies.
\n?\tIt was averred, inter alia, in the reply by the Rajasthan
\nHousing Board that AVS was a registered Society under the
\nSocieties Registration Act, 1860.\n<\/p>\n
?\tAnd it was neither financially nor administratively
\ncontrolled by the State Government or the Housing Board
\nand hence the said AVS could not be said to be a ‘State’
\nwithin the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India
\nand the employees were not employees of the State
\nGovernment or Rajasthan Housing Board, they had no
\nremedy against the State Government or the petitioner-
\nHousing Board.\n<\/p>\n
During the pendency of the writ petitions, an offer was
\nmade to the employees of the AVS to agree to be given new
\nappointment in local self Government institutions on the
\ncondition mentioned in order dated 01.06.1999 of the State
\nGovernment and the employees were asked to submit
\nundertaking in the form of affidavits that they were willing to
\ntake employment in the Municipal Boards, Municipal Councils,
\nJ.D.A etc. on the conditions set out in the order and that on
\nsuch affidavits being filed, they would be given employment in
\nsuch local Government institutions.\n<\/p>\n
The respondents and all the other permanent employees of
\nthe AVS submitted their affidavits and were given employment in
\nthe Municipal Boards, Municipal Councils, and J.D.A.
\n\tLearned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ
\npetition and held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
a)\temployees will be entitled to salary for the period worked by
\nthem;\n<\/p>\n
b)\tRajasthan Housing Board to create a new cell in the name
\nof the Low Cost Housing Centre or any other name and the
\nemployees would be employed in the said centre;\n<\/p>\n
c)\tThe policy of the State Government to give alternate
\nemployment was quashed. However, the employees were
\ngiven option to continue in the said employment if they so
\nchoose.\n<\/p>\n
Feeling aggrieved, the Rajasthan Housing Board, the AVS
\nand the State Government preferred appeals before the Division
\nBench of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
The Division Bench disposed of all the appeals by the
\nimpugned order. The Division Bench maintained the direction to
\npay unpaid salary. The direction to constitute a Low Cost
\nHousing Centre and the quashing of State Government decision
\nto provide alternate employment was set aside. However, the
\nDivision Bench on the appeal filed by the employees directed
\ngrant of following benefits:\n<\/p>\n
i)\tpay protection;\n<\/p>\n
ii)\tservice to be counted for the purpose of pension and
\nother retirement benefits;\n<\/p>\n
iii)\tbenefit of fixed period higher pay sacle available to
\nGovernment employees under Government Order dated
\n25.01. 1992;\n<\/p>\n
iv)\tbenefit of 5th  Pay Commission to be available on
\nnotional basis;\n<\/p>\n
v)\tone Narendra Kumar Sharma and few other daily wagers
\nto be treated as regular appointees as they were selected
\nbut not appointed on regular basis till date of
\ndissolution;\n<\/p>\n
vi)  certain employees including Brijesh Kumar Goel and
\nR.K.Saini who were working at Latur Project in
\nMaharashtra were also entitled to alternative
\nemployment in local bodies.\n<\/p>\n
PARTICULARS OF APPEALS <\/p>\n
The appeals in the present batch of cases may be divided in
\nthe following three categories:\n<\/p>\n
A.\tThe following 12 appeals have been filed by the RHB and AVS:
\nCivil Appeal Nos. 5302\/04, 5317-5322\/04, 5312-5316\/04,
\n5309-5311\/04, 5323-5327\/04, 5328-5330\/04, 5331-
\n5336\/04, 5342-5348\/04, 5305-5308\/04, 5337\/04,
\n5303\/04.\n<\/p>\n
B.\tThe following 11 appeals have been filed by the State of
\nRajasthan:\n<\/p>\n
Civil Appeal Nos. 5339\/04, 5371-5376\/04, 5366-5370\/04,
\n5309-5352-5354\/04, 5377-5381\/04, 5357-5359\/04, 5360-
\n5365\/04, 5386-5392\/04, 5382-5385\/04, 5356\/04.
\nC.\tThe following appeal have been filed by the Employees:\n<\/p>\n
     Civil Appeal Nos. 5349-5351\/04
\nAgainst the decision of the Division Bench of the High
\nCourt, the appellants preferred the above appeals to this Court.\n<\/p>\n
We heard Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel
\nappearing for the appellant and Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned
\nsenior counsel, Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta and Ms. Shobha, learned
\ncounsel appearing for the respective respondents.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel for the
\nappellants made the following submissions:\n<\/p>\n
a) That after the dissolution of the AVS, in the writ petition
\npreferred by the respondents no ground was taken saying that
\nthe liquidation was mala fide nor was it prayed that the decision
\nto liquidate be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
b) That on 18.05.1999 Cabinet decision was taken to
\nabsorb the employees of the AVS ‘in principle’ as decided on
\n09.03.1999 by prescribing certain terms and conditions after
\nconsidering the opinion of the Finance Department.\n<\/p>\n
c) That there is no conflict between the Cabinet decisions
\ndated 09.03.1999 and 18.05.1999, neither is there any change
\nin policy of the State Government nor the State Government has
\ngone back on any promise made earlier. In the cabinet decisions
\ndated 09.03.1999 only an ‘in principle’ decision was taken to
\nadjust the employees of the AVS in other local bodies and
\n‘modalities’ of adjustment was worked out in the Cabinet
\ndecision dated 18.05.1999.\n<\/p>\n
d) Thereafter the State Government wrote to all local bodies
\nfor appointment of employees of the AVS in their departments
\nalong with affidavits filed by the employees of the AVS showing
\ntheir willingness to take employment in other local bodies. In
\n2000, all the employees of the AVS were given alternate
\nemployment as fresh employment on certain terms and
\nconditions.  All the employees have submitted affidavits inter-
\nalia stating that their appointment with local bodies will be
\ntreated as fresh appointment and will not claim continuity of
\nservice, seniority, pay protection etc and that they will withdraw
\nwrit petition. Several employees have even filed application for
\nthe withdrawal of the writ petition in terms of their
\nundertakings.\n<\/p>\n
e) the writ petition was not amended challenging the terms
\nof undertaking filed by the employees of Sansthan for securing
\nemployment with the local bodies. There is no allegation in the
\nwrit petition that the employees were coerced\/forced\/unduly
\ninfluenced to submit the undertaking.\n<\/p>\n
Submissions on Merit
\nIt was submitted by Mr. Hansaria that abolition of posts is a
\nmatter of policy and is an inherent right of the employer
\nparticularly on the closure of a project due to lack of funds and
\nheavy loss.  The natural consequence of abolition of posts in any
\norganization is the termination of services of the employees
\nengaged in such organization. It was further urged that the
\nemployees whose services have been terminated as a
\nconsequence of abolition of posts have no right to seek
\nreemployment or absorption in other departments.  Learned
\nsenior counsel relied on the view taken by this Court way back
\nin 1973 in the case of M. Ramanathan Pillai v. State of
\nKerala, (1973) 2 SCC 650 that ‘the discharge of the civil servant
\non account of abolition of post held by him is not an action
\nwhich is proposed to be taken as a personal penalty but it is an
\naction concerning the policy of the State whether a permanent
\npost should continue or not. The power to abolish any civil post
\nis inherent in every sovereign government. And such abolition
\nwill not entail any right on the person holding the abolished post
\nthe right to reemployment or to hold the same post.\n<\/p>\n
Learned senior counsel relied on the decision in
\nK. Rajendran v. State of Tamil Nadu,<\/a> (1982) 2 SCC 273 on the
\nsame issue in which this Court has held that, ‘the question
\nwhether a person who ceases to be Government servant
\naccording to law should be rehabilitated by giving an alternative
\nemployment is, as the law stands today, a matter of policy on
\nwhich the Court has no voice.’ <\/p>\n
Citing the decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra v.
\nState of Rajasthan<\/a> (1999) 2 SCC 317 and S.M.Nilajkar v.
\nTelecom District Manager<\/a> (2003) 4 SCC 27 learned senior
\ncounsel submitted that when a project has been shut down due
\nto want of funds the employer cannot by a writ of mandamus be
\ndirected to continue employing such employees as have been
\ndislodged because such a direction would amount to requisition
\nfor creation of posts though not required by the employer and
\nfunding such posts though the employer did not have the funds
\navailable for the purpose. And also that the same will act as a
\ndisincentive to the state to float such schemes in future.\n<\/p>\n
With regard to the employment of 604 employees of the
\nAVS, it was argued that the State of Rajasthan had no legal
\nobligation to offer alternative employment to the erstwhile
\nemployees of the Sansthan. But the State of Rajasthan did frame
\na scheme and offered employment in other local bodies of the
\ngovernment. Therefore the terms and conditions of such
\nalternative employment cannot be challenged.\n<\/p>\n
It was also submitted that additional financial burden will
\nfall upon the various local bodies which have absorbed the
\nemployees of the AVS, if the directions of the Division Bench of
\nthe Rajasthan High Court are enforced.  It was further argued
\nthat the employees of the AVS did accept the alternative
\nemployment with the terms and conditions set out initially by
\nway of an affidavit and therefore they are now estopped from
\nclaiming benefit and challenging the terms and conditions of the
\nfresh employment by citing the decision in the case of Bank of
\nIndia v. O.P.Swarnakar<\/a> (2003) 2 SCC 721 which laid down
\nthat, “the scheme is contractual in nature. The contractual right
\nderived by the employees concerned, therefore, could be waived.
\nThe employees concerned having accepted a part of the benefit
\ncould not be permitted to approbate and reprobate nor can they
\nbe permitted to resile from their earlier stand.”\n<\/p>\n
Placing reliance on a very recent decision of this Court in
\nthe State of Uttaranchal vs. Jagpal Singh Tyagi,<\/a> (2005) 8
\nSCC 49, learned senior counsel submitted that, “the employees
\ndid not, at any point of time, claim that the terms of settlement
\nwere not fair, therefore after obtaining some benefit, it was not
\nopen to the employees to later turn away without justifiable
\ncause and contend that the settlement was not fair.”\n<\/p>\n
On the question of Pay Protection and for counting services
\nrendered in the AVS for pension and other retiral benefits
\nclaimed by the respondents, the arguments put forward by the
\nappellant was that on facts the Cabinet decision of 18-05-1999
\nspecifically states that “no pay protection should be granted to
\nthe employees”, the same was conveyed by the Rajasthan
\nHousing Board letter dated 01-06-1999. This decision was taken
\nafter considering the views of the Finance Department. So also
\nthe undertaking by the employees when they were absorbed into
\nother local bodies had the same stipulation, therefore at this
\nlater stage such pay protection and counting of services for
\npension and other retiral benefits cannot be claimed for.\n<\/p>\n
Coming to the claim of the respondents for the benefit of
\nthe Government order date 25.01.1992, it was argued by the
\nappellants that the Government Order in question is applicable
\nonly to ‘government servants’ and as such the employees of AVS
\nare not entitled to the benefit of the said government order. And
\nalso the employees would be governed by the terms and
\nconditions of the local bodies where they have been reemployed.
\nSo also the benefit of the 5th Pay Commission is applicable only
\nto government employees. Since the employees of the AVS are
\nnot govt employees they are not entitled to the benefit of the 5th
\nPay Commission.\n<\/p>\n
With regard to appointment of 46 daily wage employees, it
\nwas argued that after the dissolution of the Society, there is no
\nright on the part of any employee to be reemployed. Therefore, it
\nwas argued that the daily wagers have no right seeking regular
\nappointment.  The decision of this Court in the case of Punjab
\nState Electricity Board v. Malkiat Singh,<\/a> (2005) 9 SCC 22
\nwas relied on.  It was held that, “it is settled law that mere
\ninclusion of name of a candidate in the select list does not confer
\non such candidate any vested right to get an order of
\nappointment”. Thus it was argued that the Writ issued by the
\nDivision Bench of the High Court to treat the daily wagers at par
\nwith the regular appointees of Avas Vikas Sansthan is wrong.\n<\/p>\n
Further it was argued by the appellant that the decision in
\nthe case of Central Inland Waters Transport corporation
\nlimited & Anr. Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr., (1986) 3 SCC
\n156 and Delhi Transport Corporation vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor
\nCongree & Ors.,<\/a> (1991) Supp 1 SCC 600 have no application
\nhere because those cases relate to a term in the employment
\nthat even services of a permanent employee can be terminated
\non 3 months notice without assigning any reason and such
\ncondition was specifically assailed therein. The present matter
\nrelates to providing alternative employment to the employees of
\nan organization that is liquidated and posts have been
\nabolished. In such circumstances the employees of an
\norganization that is liquidated has no right to seek
\nreemployment.\n<\/p>\n
It was argued that the reliance placed by the respondents
\non the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1969 is
\nwholly misconceived as the Rules mentioned apply only to
\ngovernment servants. Therefore, these rules will not apply to
\nemployees of the AVS.\n<\/p>\n
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel for the
\nrespondent submitted as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
According to learned senior counsel, the judgment of the
\nDivision Bench of the Rajasthan High Court is correct in so far
\nas it gave:\n<\/p>\n
\ta) Pay protection (including benefit of higher scales for
\ncompleting of 9,18 and 27 years)\n<\/p>\n
\tb) Counting of service for retiral benefits for long standing
\nemployees of the AVS.\n<\/p>\n
Submissions on Law
\nThe State is expected to act as a model employer exhibiting
\n‘fairness of action’ towards long standing employees.  Learned
\nsenior counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Gurmail
\nSingh v. State of Punjab,<\/a> (1991) 1 SCC 748.  It was laid down
\nby this Court that even though according to the provisions of
\nSection 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
\nretrenchment compensation has been paid and accepted, the
\nState was under a duty to treat employees who were on
\ndeputation and those who were dismissed equally because the
\nstate was a “model employer” exhibiting “fairness in action”.\n<\/p>\n
It was argued that the above case is an authority for the
\nproposition that where a state body is shut down, it is part of the
\nobligations of the state as a model employer dedicated to fairness
\nin action that subject to adjustments, employees who were on
\ndeputation and those who are dismissed should be absorbed
\nsubject to similar equities:-\n<\/p>\n
There should necessarily be: –\n<\/p>\n
?\tPay protection where appointments are made on a
\nlower scale.\n<\/p>\n
?\tCounting of Service for retiral benefits
\n?\tPlacing the employees on par in the receiving
\ndepartments including salary<\/p>\n
Gurmail Singh (supra) has also laid down that it would not
\nbe fair to allow absorbed employees to steal a march over the
\nemployees in the department into which they are absorbed.
\nHowever the regular appointees of such local bodies should not
\nbe put at a disadvantageous position by the loss of seniority due
\nto the absorption of the employees of the AVS.\n<\/p>\n
Following the decision in the case of Central Inland
\nWaters Transport corporation limited (supra), it can be
\nobserved that:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tUnfair labour contracts shock the conscience and are
\nopposed to public policy.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tSuch unconscionability could be caused by economic
\nduress\n<\/p>\n
3.\tInequality of bargaining powers vitiates contracts, such
\ncontracts also violate Article 14 of the Constitution\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThis Court in the present case applied Section 23 of the
\nContract Act and held the contract to be unconscionable
\nand void.\n<\/p>\n
“The principle deducible from the above discussions on this part
\nof the case is in consonance with right and reason, intended to
\nsecure social and economic justice and conforms to the mandate
\nof the great equality clause in Article 14. This principle is that
\nthe courts will not enforce and will when called upon to do so,
\nstrike down an unfair and unreasonable contract or an unfair or
\nunreasonable clause in the contract, entered into by two parties
\nwho are not equal in bargaining power. It is difficult to give an
\nexhaustive list of all bargains of this type. No court can visualize
\nthe different situations which can arise in the affairs of men; one
\ncan only attempt to give some illustrations.”\n<\/p>\n
Further, learned senior counsel submitted that this Court
\nin Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress,<\/a>
\n(supra) approved the Central Inland decision (supra) and
\nstruck down the unconscionable ‘hire & fire’ clause.\n<\/p>\n
Our attention was invited to certain observations made by
\nRamaswamy, J. and B.C. Ray, J; which are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThe State cannot impose unconscionable conditions and
\nstated that such contracts were contrary to Article 14.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tPublic policy in contract be construed accordingly and be
\ndrawn from the constitution.\n<\/p>\n
B.C. Ray, J. observed that there should not be any limitation on
\nthe freedom of contract and specifically approved Central
\nInland decision (supra) in respect of such contracts being
\ncontrary to Article 14 guaranteed under the Constitution. This
\nCourt further observed that, “The court has, therefore the
\njurisdiction and power to strike or set aside the unfavourable
\nterms in contract of employment which purports to give effect to
\nunconscionable bargain violating Article 14 of the constitution.”\n<\/p>\n
It was further observed in the case of Prakash
\nRamachandra v. Maruthi, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 539 that any
\nundertaking to the court and contractual arrangement resultant
\nthereto does not oust the jurisdiction or the power of the court to
\nhear cases or grant relief.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the respondents while citing the
\ndecision in National Building Construction Corporation v.
\nRaghunathan,<\/a> (1998) 7 SCC 66 argued that a legitimate
\nexpectation is created where employees have been assured
\nabsorption on one basis, which is there altered to their detriment
\nunder coercive circumstances where they have not been paid
\nand acted on the previous promise that they have tried to
\nenforce in court. It was further argued that the decisions cited
\nby the appellant on Article 311 and abolishing civil posts are
\nexceptional and irrelevant to the present controversy.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, according to learned senior counsel, the law
\nclearly establishes that,\n<\/p>\n
(a) The State must be a model employer and show fairness in
\naction\n<\/p>\n
(b) Even where all statutory requirements (such as Section 25
\nFF) and technicalities have been complied with, the State must
\nbe fair enough to absorb employees on a minimal fairness basis
\nwhich includes:\n<\/p>\n
\ti)\tprotection to pay scale\n<\/p>\n
\tii)\tcounting of past service for pensionary benefits\n<\/p>\n
\tiii)\tno seniority over new employees in the new
\norganization\n<\/p>\n
\tiv)\tequal treatment in future with all employees\n<\/p>\n
(c) Unconscionable contracts and undertakings are contrary to
\nsection 23 of the Indian Contract Act, public policy, Article 14 of
\nthe Constitution and Directive Principles of state policies.\n<\/p>\n
(d) Undertakings not accepted by the lower court (and even if
\naccepted) do not inhibit this Court’s jurisdiction to hear a matter
\nand grant relief.\n<\/p>\n
With regard to the argument of the appellant’s counsel that:\n<\/p>\n
(a) the employees should not be given pensions;\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) the Division Bench should not have ordered increments
\nat 7,13 & 27 years as are available to other employees the
\nlearned counsel argued that, if this was made practicable, the
\nemployees after joining the new department cannot be meted out
\ndiscriminatory treatment. They will lose seniority, but they
\ncannot be denied benefits available to others. The respondent’s
\ncounsel also stated that a situation cannot be created where, a
\nformer AVS worker has no pension or Provident Fund and also
\nnot to discriminate by not to extending 9,18 & 27 years of
\nservice which would be available to others.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent
\nmade the following submissions:-\n<\/p>\n
That AVS falls within the definition of ‘other authorities’
\nunder Article 12 of the Constitution and was managed,
\ncontrolled and owned by the State of Rajasthan and was dealing
\nwith the affairs of the State by referring to the decisions of this
\nCourt in Federal Bank Ltd v. Sagar Thomas,<\/a> (2003) 10 SCC
\n733 and Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institution of
\nChemical Biology,<\/a> (2002) 5 SCC 111.\n<\/p>\n
It was further argued that the learned Single Judge clearly
\nheld that the entitlement of the employees was not on any
\nhumanitarian ground but because the employees had a right to
\nbe absorbed and to be treated in a reasonable, just and proper
\nmanner.\n<\/p>\n
According to Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, the employees, who
\nhave been absorbed in the other authorities, were entitled to the
\nfollowing reliefs: –\n<\/p>\n
1.\tFitment in the stage of the pay scale, which they were
\nalready drawing in the Avas Vikas Sansthan and
\nconsequent increments.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tArrears of pay on the basis of the above statement\n<\/p>\n
3.\tSeniority of the AVS vis-`-vis employees in the authorities
\nin which they were absorbed. They are entitled to seniority
\nin the other undertakings etc on the basis of date of their
\nsubstantive appointment. Therefore inter se seniority of the
\nemployees of Avas Vikas Sansthan who were absorbed in
\nother authorities.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tCorresponding designation of post in the authorities in
\nwhich they were absorbed.\n<\/p>\n
Ms. Shobha, learned counsel appearing for the daily wagers
\nsubmitted that some of the daily wagers were declared qualified
\nbut kept in the waiting list for non-availability of sanctioned
\nvacant posts.  According to her, the High Court has rightly
\nappreciated the facts and circumstances of the present
\ncontroversy issued appropriate directions for absorption and
\nthat the balance of equity lies in their favour in view of the fact
\nthat the respondents have successfully cleared the exemption for
\nregular appointment and had to remain in the waiting list on the
\npretext that no vacant sanctioned post is available.  It was also
\nsubmitted that the appellants have absorbed\/adjusted
\nnumerous employees of the AVS but few of them including the
\nrespondents have been left on the pretext that they were not the
\nregular appointed employees.  Concluding her arguments, she
\nsubmitted that they are also entitled for similar treatment being
\nduly selected employees of the AVS.  It is also relevant to
\nmention that the employees were not appointed against any
\nproject and the termination order was passed due to financial
\ninviability of the AVS and not because of some fault of
\nrespondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n
We have carefully considered the lengthy submissions
\nmade by learned counsel appearing for both the parties. We have
\nalso perused all the pleadings, annexures as well as the
\njudgments of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of
\nthe Rajasthan High Court<\/p>\n
In our opinion, the submissions made by learned senior
\ncounsel for the AVS merit acceptance and stand to reason in the
\npeculiar facts and circumstances of the case.  Though the
\narguments of Dr. Rajeev Dhawan and Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,
\nlearned counsel appearing for the employees are attractive on
\nthe first blush, yet on a careful reconsideration of the same, it
\nhas no merits.\n<\/p>\n
In our view, after the liquidation of the AVS due to any
\nreason unless such liquidation was malafide, there exists no
\nright on the employees of such liquidated society for
\nreemployment. In the present case, the Rajasthan Government
\ndid formulate a scheme to absorb the employees of the society
\ninto various other organizations with various terms and
\nconditions to which the respondent employees agreed. There is
\nno allegation in the writ petition that the employees were
\ncoerced\/forced\/unduly influenced to submit the undertaking.
\nTherefore, at a later stage it is unfair to take claims of service
\nconditions other than the ones that are stipulated and accepted
\nearlier.\n<\/p>\n
In the case of Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan,<\/a> (1999) 2
\nSCC 317 and S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager,<\/a>
\n(2003) 4 SCC 27 where a project has been shut down due to
\nwant of funds the employer cannot by a writ of mandamus be
\ndirected to continue employing such employees as have been
\ndislodged because such a direction would amount to requisition
\nfor creation of posts though not required by the employer and
\nfunding such posts though the employer did not have the funds
\navailable for the purpose. This finding is applicable in the
\npresent matter and therefore the finding of the High Court is not
\nfair to common conscience and also that the same will act as a
\ndisincentive to the state to float such schemes in future thereby
\nreducing the employment opportunities of many.\n<\/p>\n
POWER TO ABOLISH CIVIL POSTS
\nIt is settled law that the power to abolish any civil post is
\ninherent in every sovereign government and such abolition will
\nnot entail any right on the person holding the abolished post the
\nright to reemployment or to hold the same post. In the present
\ncase, the State Government was benevolent enough to float a
\nscheme to absorb such employees whose posts were abolished.
\nTherefore, in our opinion, the arguments advanced by counsel
\nfor the respondents with regard to unfairness meted out to the
\nemployees of Avas Vikas Sansthan hold no water.\n<\/p>\n
With regard to 604 employees of the AVS, it was argued
\nthat the State of Rajasthan had no legal obligation to offer
\nalternative employment to the erstwhile employees of the AVS.
\nBut the State of Rajasthan in all fairness did frame a scheme
\nand offered employment in other local bodies of the government.
\nThus, the terms and conditions of such alternative employment
\ncannot be challenged.  We are of the opinion, that the decision of
\nthe High Court granting relief of reemployment with pay
\nprotection, seniority and pension is erroneous. We, therefore,
\ndirect the State of Rajasthan to strictly adhere to and implement
\nits decision to offer employment in other local bodies in letter
\nand spirit.\n<\/p>\n
We further make it clear that all the erstwhile employees, if
\nnot already employed, should be employed in the local bodies as
\nper the scheme formulated by the Government of Rajasthan in a
\nwar footing.\n<\/p>\n
PAY PROTECTION
\nOn the question of Pay Protection claimed by the
\nrespondents, it is seen from the Cabinet decision of 18.05.1999
\nthat “no pay protection should be granted to the employees”. The
\nsame was conveyed by the Rajasthan Housing Board vide letter
\ndated 01.06.1999.  This decision was taken after considering the
\nviews of the Finance Department. So the undertaking by the
\nemployees when they were absorbed into other local bodies had
\nthe same stipulation. This being so, such claim for pay
\nprotection, at this late stage, cannot be made. Thus, considering
\nthe categorical condition that the employees will not be given
\nany pay protection, and moreover due to the absence of any legal
\nright for pay protection to the employees of the AVS, such
\nclaims, in our opinion, cannot be sought for.\n<\/p>\n
With regard to the claim of the respondents for counting
\nservices rendered in the AVS, the Cabinet decision of 18.05.1999
\nspecifically states that “the benefit of past service is not to be
\ncounted for any purpose”. The same was conveyed by the
\nRajasthan Housing Board letter dated 01.06.1999. Therefore the
\nundertaking by the employees when they were absorbed into
\nother local bodies had the same stipulation; therefore at this late
\nstage such claim for counting services rendered in the AVS for
\nthe pension and other retiral benefits, in our opinion, cannot be
\nmade.\n<\/p>\n
Since the employees of the AVS are not treated as
\ngovernment servants, they are not entitled to claim the benefit of
\nGovernment Order dated 25.01.1995, which is specifically
\napplicable only to government employees and the benefit of the
\n5th Pay Commission Report also stands inapplicable as this was
\nnot a claim that was sought by the respondents at any stage in
\nany court that had entertained this matter. Also the Rajasthan
\nCivil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 will
\nnot apply as such to these employees of the AVS as they clearly
\ndo not fall within the definition of Surplus Personnel as defined
\nin the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel)
\nRules, 1969.\n<\/p>\n
As regards the question of whether Rajasthan Housing
\nBoard can be considered ‘State’ under Article 12 of the
\nConstitution, no serious arguments were made by either counsel
\nfor the parties and, therefore, we are not expressing any opinion
\non the same and decide the other issues on the basis of the
\narguments advanced.\n<\/p>\n
RIGHTS OF DAILY WAGERS
\nWith regard to the appointment of 46 daily wage employees
\nafter the dissolution of the Society, we hold that, in the facts and
\ncircumstances of this case there is no right on the part of any
\nemployee to be reemployed. Also daily wage employees cannot,
\nby any stretch of imagination, be put on par with regular
\nemployees under any law prevalent as of date.  The finding of the
\nDivision Bench that they can be treated on par with regular
\nemployees and be given various reliefs is wrong and erroneous
\nunder law. Therefore, we are not granting any relief to the daily
\nwage employees as their claim is not justified under law.
\nHowever, the Government of Rajasthan may sympathetically
\nconsider absorption of these employees in the vacancy available
\nif any in future by giving them preference to other new
\napplicants in any of their local bodies etc. subject to the
\nfollowing conditions:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThe employees will be entitled to salary\/wages from
\nthe date of their re-employment and shall not claim
\nfor any past period;\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe employees will not be entitled to pay
\nprotection, benefit of GO dated 25.01.1992, 5th Pay
\nCommission and the service rendered by the
\nemployees will not be considered for pension
\nand\/or other retrial benefits;\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe appointment of Degree holder\/Diploma holder
\nEngineers shall be on the post of Junior Engineer
\non the minimum scale of pay;\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe appointment of employees of Administrative
\nDepartment would be on the post of Junior Clerk
\non the minimum scale of pay;\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe appointment would be subject to suitability
\nand physical fitness;\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe alternative employment would be granted
\nsubject to availability of vacancy preferably within
\na period of 3 months.\n<\/p>\n
    If they are absorbed in future the same will be treated as
\na fresh employment and employees\/appointees will be
\ngoverned by the rules and regulations of the absorbing
\nDepartment if they are found suitable.\n<\/p>\n
POWER TO ABOLISH POSTS AS A MEASURE OF ECONOMY:
\nIt is well settled that the power to abolish a post which may
\nresult in the holder thereof ceasing to be a Government Servant
\nhas got to be recognized.  The measure of economy and the need
\nfor streamlining the administration to make it more efficient may
\ninduce any State Government to make alterations in the staffing
\npattern of the civil services necessitating either the increase or
\nthe decrease in the number of posts or abolish the post.  In such
\nan event, a Department which was abolished or abandoned
\nwholly or partially for want of funds, the Court cannot, by a writ
\nof mandamus, direct the employer to continue employing such
\nemployees as have been dislodged.  In the instant case, the State
\nof Rajasthan has framed a scheme and offered alternative
\nemployment in the other local bodies as a Welfare State on
\nhumanitarian grounds.  As already noticed, the employees of the
\nAVS have accepted alternative employment on terms and
\nconditions of the local bodies and having filed a solemn
\nstatement by way of affidavit that they will not claim continuity
\nof service by protection of seniority etc. nor will they challenge
\nthe terms of such employment and shall also withdraw the writ
\npetition filed by them.  They cannot now go around and say that
\nthe judgment of the Division Bench should be given effect to.  In
\nour view, they are estopped from claiming the benefits and
\nchallenging the terms and conditions of the fresh employment.
\nThe employees have no right to resile from the affidavits filed
\nbefore the High Court.  We have searched in vain in order to see
\nas to whether there is any material to show that the settlement
\nwas intended to frustrate the order passed by the High Court.
\nAt no point of time, the employees raised any dispute as regards
\nthe fairness of the settlement.  Having obtained the benefit, it
\nwas not open to them to turn down without justifiable reasons to
\ncontend that the settlement was not fair and they should be
\ngiven pay protection, counting of service for retiral benefits and
\nplacing the employees on par in the receiving Department.  The
\ncabinet decision of not granting pay protection was taken after
\ntaking into consideration the views of the Finance Department
\nas it has huge financial burden on the local bodies offering re-
\nemployment after relaxing their own recruitment rules.  In our
\nview, the aforesaid categorical condition that the employees
\nwould not be entitled to pay protection and in the absence of any
\nlegal right of pay protection and fresh employment consequent
\nupon on fresh appointment on humanitarian grounds, the
\ndecision of the High Court to grant protection of pay is
\nunsustainable and liable to be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel for the
\nrespondents, cited many decisions.  Those cases, in our view, is
\ndistinguishable on facts and on law.  In those cases, the High
\nCourt has directed protection of pay on the facts and
\ncircumstances as can be seen from a perusal of the same.\n<\/p>\n
The cabinet decision dated 18.05.1999 specifically decided
\nthat their period of earlier service shall not be valid for any
\npurpose.  This was specifically conveyed by the State
\nGovernment to the Rajasthan Housing Board vide letter dated
\n01.06.1999 and also the letter of the State Government dated
\n26.02.2000 to the various local bodies.  It is stated that one of
\nthe terms of re-employment would be that earlier service tenure
\nshall not be considered for any purpose.  Furthermore, under
\nthe provisions of the AVS Employees Service Regulation, 1993,
\nthe employees of the AVS were entitled to provident fund.  Rule
\n14 provide as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“An employee of Sansthan shall be required to
\nsubscribe to the Contributory Provident Fund in
\naccordance with such Rules as may be prescribed
\nby the Board of Management.”\n<\/p>\n
The employees of the AVS were having the benefit of
\ncontributing provident fund and were not entitled to any other
\npensionary\/retiral benefits.  The employees have withdrawn
\nprovident fund including the employer’s contribution after
\ntermination of service from the AVS.  It is thus crystal clear that
\nthe services rendered by the employees with AVS cannot be
\ncounted for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits
\nsince such benefits were not available to them even in their
\nparent organization and it was a specific condition of fresh
\nemployment that their past services with AVS will not be
\nconsidered for any purpose.\n<\/p>\n
Even in A.I. Railway Parcel & Goods Porters Union vs.
\nUnion of India & Ors,<\/a> (2003) 11 SCC 590 at 603 page 34 one of
\nus was a member (Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J} while giving various
\ndirections in the matter of regularisation of contract labour, this
\nCourt did not direct that the services rendered by the contract
\nlabourers with the contractor would be counted for the purpose
\nof grant of retiral benefits by the principal employer.  The
\nrecommendations of the 5th Pay Commission is applicable only
\nto Government Servants and as such the employees of AVS who
\nare not government employees are not entitled to 5th Pay
\nCommission even in the writ petition filed by the organisation
\nthere was no prayer for grant of benefit of 5th Pay Commission.
\nThus, the High Court has erred in directing that the benefit of
\nrecommendations of 5th Pay Commission shall be given to the
\nemployees of the AVS on notional basis.  We make it clear that
\nthe employees would be governed by the terms and conditions of
\nthe local bodies where they have been re-employed.\n<\/p>\n
At the time of hearing, a submission under the heading
\ndoubts of financial bona fides was made.  It is submitted that
\nthe said plea is without any pleading in the writ petition.  There
\nis no pleading either on facts or in the grounds in the writ
\npetition that the averments contained in the note dated
\n09.03.1999 and 18.05.1999 to the effect that the AVS has no
\ncapital base or reserve capital and has huge financial
\noutstanding is incorrect.  It is also not in dispute that the
\nemployees of the AVS could not be paid salaries of December,
\n1998 that amounted to about more than Rs.2 crores nor the writ
\npetitioners\/respondent employees have argued either before the
\nSingle Judge or before the Division Bench of the High Court that
\nthe liquidation of the AVS was mala fide and or extraneous
\nconsideration.  So also there is no averment in the writ petition
\nas regards the constitution of the AVS or the work of the AVS
\nbeing transferred to the AVS.  As a matter of fact, the AVS was
\nincorporated under the Companies Act in the year 1996 and the
\nAVS has majority share holding in AVS in the absence of any
\nother pleading and contention raised before the High Court such
\nsubmission on facts cannot at all be countenanced before this
\nCourt in the present proceedings.  Likewise, the submission
\nmade by learned counsel appearing for the employees that the
\nState has gone back on its decision and they have coerced the
\nemployees to agree to certain conditions cannot at all be
\ncountenanced.\n<\/p>\n
FAIRNESS IN ACTION:\n<\/p>\n
In our opinion, the State of Rajasthan has acted fairly and
\nbenevolently though the State has no constitutional and legal
\nobligation to offer alternative employment to the employees of
\nthe AVS upon abolition of posts.  Consequent to the liquidation
\nof the AVS itself, it had framed a scheme to adjust the employees
\nin other local bodies by relaxing the rules of such bodies and
\nterms and conditions were fixed without financial economic
\ncompulsions of the State.  The present case is one of liquidation
\nof an organisation and consequent abolition of post in the said
\norganisation.  There is also no pleading that the conditions
\ncontained in the undertaking are contrary to Section 23 of the
\nContract Act or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution or
\ninconsistent with the directive principles of state policy.  The
\nCentral Inland Waterways case (supra) and Delhi Transport
\nCorpn. Case (supra) relied on by these employees, in our view,
\nhave no application of the present case and is distinguishable on
\nfacts and law.  Those cases relate to a term in the employment
\nthat even services of a permanent employee can be terminated
\non 3 months’ notice without assigning any reason and such
\ncondition was specifically assailed therein.  However, the present
\ncase relates to providing alternative employment to the
\nemployees of an organisation that is liquidated and posts have
\nbeen abolished.  In such circumstances, this Court has held in a
\nnumber of cases that the employees have no right to seek re-
\nemployment in any other organisation.  So also, there has been
\nno challenge in any of the case decided by the High Court to the
\nterms and conditions of undertaking that they were unfair,
\narbitrary and are contrary to public policy and as such violative
\nof Section 23 of the Contract Act or Article 14 of the Constitution
\nof India or any directive principles of state policy.\n<\/p>\n
The question of legitimate expectation has also not been
\nraised at any stage and as such cannot be agitated before us in
\nthis court<\/p>\n
The reliance on the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services
\n(Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 is wholly
\nmisconceived in as much as the said rule apply only to “surplus
\npersonnel” who were “appointed to various services or posts in
\nconnection with the affairs of the state” in terms of Rule 2 of the
\nsaid Rules. Surplus personnel have been defined in Rule 3(1) as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
      “Surplus Personnel” or “Surplus Employee”
\nmeans the Government servant to whom the
\nRajasthan Services Rules, 1951 apply and who are
\ndeclared surplus by the government or by the
\nappointing authority, under directions of the
\ngovernment, on their being rendered surplus to the
\nrequirements of a particular department of the
\ngovernment due to the reduction of posts or
\nabolition of offices therein as measures of economy
\nor on administrative grounds but in whose case
\nthe Government decides not to terminate their
\nservices but to retain them in service by
\nabsorption on other posts.”\n<\/p>\n
A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule clearly demonstrates that
\nthe rules are applicable only to the Government servants to
\nwhom Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 apply. The employees of
\nAvas Vikas Sansthan are not government servants nor
\nRajasthan Service Rules, 1951 were applicable to them and as
\nsuch the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of
\nSurplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 are not applicable in the
\npresent case.\n<\/p>\n
Further submissions of the learned counsel that the
\nemployees must be posted on the posts earlier held by them is
\nwithout any merit since these employees had no right to claim
\nadjustments to other local bodies. The Cabinet decision dated
\n18.05. 1999 have categorically stated as under:
\n“All these appointments should be made to the
\nlowest posts and engineers should be appointed
\nonly on the post of Junior Engineers and
\nEmployees of Administrative Departments should
\nbe appointed only on the post of Junior Clerk.”\n<\/p>\n
So also all these employees have given undertaking not to
\nraise any dispute in the matter. Thus this contention is
\nuntenable and is liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgments of the
\nHigh Court are set aside and we hold that all the civil appeals
\nfiled by the Rajasthan Housing Board, the AVS and the State of
\nRajasthan are allowed.  The Civil Appeals filed by the employees
\nstand dismissed.  No costs. <\/p>\n
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5338 OF 2004<\/p>\n
State of Rajasthan\t\t\t               \t..\tAppellant  (s)<\/p>\n
          \tVersus<\/p>\n
Radha Krishan Karwashra & Ors.\t\t..   Respondent (s)<\/p>\n
WITH  <\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5340-41\/2004<\/p>\n
ORDER
\n\tIt was submitted by Mr. Badridas Sharma, learned counsel
\nfor the appellants, that the above appeals are of an entirely
\ndifferent type in which the respondent had challenged the order
\ndated 25.04.1998 of the Avas Vikas Sansthan and by that
\nletter\/order, it was pointed out that 10 employees including Mr.
\nRadha Krishan Karwashra had not accepted to join and do the
\nalternative work offered to them and, therefore, those persons
\nwere treated as no more in the service of the Avas Vikas
\nSansthan.  That the order of 25.04.1998 was not at all related to
\ndismissal of service of employees as a result of dissolution of the
\nSociety.  It was submitted that the writ petitions challenging the
\nsaid order dated 25.04.1998 are still pending in the High Court
\nat Jaipur in writ petition Nos. 5370\/1998 and 5383\/1998.
\nSince this fact was pointed out by Mr. Badridas Sharma during
\nthe time of hearing of these appeals, we do not consider the
\nmerits of the claim made in this appeal.  In view of this, the
\nabove appeals are delinked from the batch of appeals in Civil
\nAppeal Nos. 5302\/2004 etc. etc. and disposed of accordingly.
\nBoth parties are at liberty to pursue the pending writ petitions
\nbefore the High Court in accordance with law.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Avas Vikas Sansthan & Anr vs Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers … on 28 March, 2006 Author: . A Lakshmanan Bench: H.K. Sema, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5302 of 2004 PETITIONER: Avas Vikas Sansthan & Anr. RESPONDENT: Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers Assn. & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/03\/2006 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8584","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAvas Vikas Sansthan & Anr vs Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers ... on 28 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Avas Vikas Sansthan & Anr vs Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers ... on 28 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-01T04:30:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"39 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Avas Vikas Sansthan & Anr vs Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers … on 28 March, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-01T04:30:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006\"},\"wordCount\":7736,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006\",\"name\":\"Avas Vikas Sansthan & Anr vs Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers ... on 28 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-01T04:30:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Avas Vikas Sansthan & Anr vs Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers … on 28 March, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Avas Vikas Sansthan & Anr vs Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers ... on 28 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Avas Vikas Sansthan & Anr vs Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers ... on 28 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-01T04:30:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"39 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Avas Vikas Sansthan & Anr vs Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers … on 28 March, 2006","datePublished":"2006-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-01T04:30:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006"},"wordCount":7736,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006","name":"Avas Vikas Sansthan & Anr vs Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers ... on 28 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-01T04:30:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avas-vikas-sansthan-anr-vs-avas-vikas-sansthan-engineers-on-28-march-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Avas Vikas Sansthan & Anr vs Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers … on 28 March, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8584","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8584"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8584\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8584"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8584"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8584"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}