Date of the Judgment: February 13, 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 122
Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.
What happens to employees when a government body is dissolved? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Bihar School Examination Board. This case highlights the importance of protecting the rights of employees during organizational restructuring. The Court directed the State of Bihar to reconsider the absorption of employees who had served for approximately 23 years after the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Act, 1992 was repealed. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.
Case Background
The appellants in this case were employees of the Bihar School Examination Board, formerly known as the Bihar Intermediate Education Council. These employees had been working for the Board for around 23 years. The Bihar Intermediate Education Council Act, 1992, under which they were employed, was repealed by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council (Repeal) Act, 2007.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1992 | Bihar Intermediate Education Council Act enacted. |
| 2007 | Bihar Intermediate Education Council Act, 1992, repealed by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council (Repeal) Act, 2007. |
| Post-Repeal Act | A Committee of Secretaries was constituted to prepare a scheme for the absorption, retirement, or other service conditions of the employees. |
| Post-Committee Report | The Education Department of the Government of Bihar considered the Committee’s report and made a resolution for employee adjustment. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court directed the State Government to consider the case of the appellants in light of the Government Resolution. The Supreme Court noted that the State Government had not fully implemented the recommendations of the Committee constituted under the Repeal Act. The Supreme Court found that the Board had constituted another committee which was not required.
Legal Framework
The core legal provision in this case is Section 3 of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council (Repeal) Act, 2007. This section deals with the adjustment of employees of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council after the repeal of the 1992 Act.
Section 3 of the Repeal Act states:
“3. Adjustment of employees of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council. – (1) On and from the date of repeal of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Act, 1992, all employees of the Council, shall remain, in employment, as if the Act has not been repealed and they shall continue to be paid same salary and allowances as was payable on the date of repeal of the Act till such time State Government has taken such final decision as is provided hereinafter.
(2) The State Government shall constitute a Committee of Secretaries consisting of three Secretaries who shall prepare a detailed scheme of absorption, retirement, compulsory retirement or voluntary retirement, screening appointment and other service conditions of employees of the Council. The scheme prepared by the Committee of Secretaries shall be placed before the Government within four months from the date of enforcement of the present Act:
Provided that it shall be open to the Government to modify, amend or suggest modifications or amendment in the scheme and the scheme thereafter shall be made operational in such form and intent as finally approved by the Government. Scheme approved by the Government shall be considered as statutory scheme framed under this Act.
(3) After the scheme approved by the Government is enforced it shall be fully implemented in its approved form and intent within three months from the date of its enforcement.
(4) The Committee of Secretaries constituted under sub-section (2) of Section 3 above shall be competent to decide utility and deployment of employees of the Council during transition period and it shall not be open to any employee to question decision of Committee of Secretaries:
Provided that the State Government shall be competent to amend, modify, alter or substitute the scheme so framed for removal of any difficulty in its implementation.”
Arguments
The appellants argued that they had been working for the Board for around 23 years and should be absorbed as per the scheme formulated under the Repeal Act. They contended that the State Government was not acting on the report submitted by the Committee constituted under the Act.
The State Government’s arguments were not explicitly detailed in the judgment. However, it was noted that a second committee was formed by the Board, which found that the appellants did not have the required ten years of service.
The core of the appellant’s argument is that the State Government was obligated to act on the report of the 3-member committee constituted under the Repeal Act. The State Government was not required to form another committee to assess the eligibility of the employees.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ Submission: Absorption based on the Repeal Act |
|
| State Government’s Submission: (Implicit) |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but the main issue was:
✓ Whether the State Government was obligated to act on the report of the 3-member committee constituted under the Repeal Act for the adjustment of employees.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the State Government was obligated to act on the report of the 3-member committee constituted under the Repeal Act for the adjustment of employees. | The Supreme Court held that the State Government was obligated to act on the report of the 3-member committee. The court noted that there was no requirement for a further committee. |
Authorities
The Court did not explicitly rely on any authorities in this judgment. However, the court considered the following legal provisions:
✓ Section 3 of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council (Repeal) Act, 2007: This section outlines the procedure for the adjustment of employees after the repeal of the 1992 Act.
| Authority | How it was used |
|---|---|
| Section 3 of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council (Repeal) Act, 2007 | The Court interpreted and applied the provisions of this section to direct the State Government to take an appropriate decision based on the report of the 3-member committee. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court treated the submission |
|---|---|
| Appellants: The State Government should implement the report of the 3-member committee. | The Court agreed with the appellants. The Court directed the State Government to take an appropriate decision based on the report of the 3-member committee. |
| State Government: (Implicit) A second committee found that the appellants did not meet the service requirement. | The Court rejected the State Government’s implicit submission. The Court held that the second committee was not required. |
The Court directed the State Government to take an appropriate decision in light of the Scheme of the Repeal Act, the Report of the 3-Members Committee constituted under the Act, and the Resolution taken based on the Report. The Court also emphasized that the appellants had worked for around 23 years.
The Court held that the State Government was obligated to act on the report of the 3-member committee constituted under the Repeal Act. The Court noted that there was no requirement for a further committee.
The court observed:
“Once the Committee, as per the Act, has submitted a Report, it was for the State Government to act in terms of the Report. For the implementation of the Report, there was no requirement for a further Committee.”
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court was primarily influenced by the fact that a committee was already constituted as per the Repeal Act, and the State Government was obligated to act upon its report. The Court also took into account the long service of the appellants, which was around 23 years. The court emphasized the need to follow the procedure laid down in the statute.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Obligation to act on the 3-member committee report | 60% |
| Long service of the appellants (23 years) | 40% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The State Government must act on the recommendations of committees formed under specific statutes.
- ✓ The formation of additional committees to re-evaluate decisions already made by statutory committees is not permissible.
- ✓ The length of service of employees should be a crucial factor in decisions regarding their absorption or adjustment.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the State Government to take an appropriate decision in light of the Scheme of the Repeal Act, the Report of the 3-Members Committee, and the Resolution taken based on the Report. The Court also directed the Government to keep in mind that the appellants have worked for around 23 years. The decision was to be taken within two months from the date of the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a statute mandates the formation of a committee for a specific purpose, the government is obligated to act on the report of that committee. The judgment emphasizes that the State Government cannot form another committee to re-evaluate decisions already made by a statutory committee.
This case clarifies the procedure to be followed when a statutory body is dissolved and a new mechanism is put in place for the absorption of the employees of the dissolved body.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court directed the State of Bihar to reconsider the absorption of employees who had served for approximately 23 years, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the statutory process and the recommendations of the committee formed under the Repeal Act. The Court also highlighted the need to consider the long service of the employees.