MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the impugned order of the North Eastern Hill University (for short 'NEHU') Mawlai, Umshing fixed the revised pay of Professors of NEHU w.e.f. 01.01.2006 according to the fitments table for fixation of salary prescribed by the University Grants Commission (for short 'UGC') on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission; and none of the professors of NEHU, whose revised pay are also fixed similar with that of the present petitioner made any whisper against the impugned revised pay i.e. against the impugned revision of pay scales and they are fully satisfied with the revision of their pay scales by the NEHU according to the fitments table for fixation of salary prescribed by the UGC.

(2.) THE Apex Court (Constitution Bench) coined the words "litigious employment" in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (3): : (2006) 4 SCC 1 and held that the High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution should not, therefore, ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely, because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the court, which the Apex Court has described as "litigious employment", he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. The Apex Court is not encouraging in granting the relief to the writ petitioner which would unduly interfere with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities. The Apex Court further held that the orders based on sentiments would result in perpetuating illegalities and in the "jettisoning" of the scheme of the public employment and approving of the orders passed by the authority in mistakes in favour of the employee would result in perpetuating illegalities. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Umadevi (3) case (Supra) was also followed by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka & Ors v. G.V. Chandrashekar: : (2009) 4 SCC 342.

(3.) HEARD Mr. K Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. SC Shyam, learned CGC for the respondents No. 1 & 2. Also heard Mr. S Sen, learned counsel for the NEHU.