In this edition of the Court Judgements review, we look at the Supreme Court’s judgements on the growing practice of engaging temporary workers in government institutions, and the regularization of illegal constructions, Kerala High Court’s judgement on medical reimbursement for treatment in non-approved hospitals, Jammu and Kashmir High Court’s judgement on bribery and Chhattisgarh High Court’s judgement on rape on a dead body.
Supreme Court: Government institutions, entrusted to uphold fairness and justice, have a greater duty to prevent exploitative practices like prolonged temporary employment.
In Jaggo vs. Union of India, The Supreme Court emphasized that government institutions, by adhering to fair employment practices, can foster job security, reduce unnecessary litigation, and uphold the principles of justice they are entrusted to embody. The Court highlighted that engaging workers in temporary roles for extended periods, especially when their duties are integral to organizational functions, violates international labour standards, undermines employee morale, and invites legal challenges.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale was hearing an appeal against a Delhi High Court judgment that upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s dismissal of a plea for regularization. The appellants, engaged by the Central Water Commission (CWC) on part-time, ad-hoc terms, argued that their roles—cleaning and maintaining office premises—had evolved into ongoing and essential functions. They contended that their long-term engagement, absence of performance issues, and adherence to the principle of fair regularization justified their claim, provided their appointments were not illegal or clandestine.
However, the Tribunal dismissed their plea, citing their engagement in non-regular vacancies and insufficient full-time service. Within ten days, the employer terminated their employment. The Delhi High Court upheld this decision, reasoning that the appellants lacked the educational qualifications for regular appointments and that the CWC had since outsourced the work. The current appeal challenges these findings.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants underscored their continuous and substantive engagement over a decade, the integral nature of their duties, and the lack of any adverse performance record. They also argued that educational qualifications were irrelevant for the tasks performed and that denying regularization violated principles of equity and the guidelines set out in Uma Devi. (Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and Others)
Considering the submissions, the Apex Court ruled that the appellants’ with over a decade of uninterrupted service could not be dismissed simply by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. It stressed that their employment must be evaluated based on their sustained contributions, the integral nature of their work, and the absence of any evidence suggesting their appointments were illegal or underhanded. Their engagement was neither sporadic nor temporary but regular and aligned with responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts.
The Court also noted that no other personnel were engaged for these duties during the appellants’ tenure, highlighting the indispensable nature of their work. The recurring nature of their tasks necessitated classification as regular posts, regardless of the labels used at the time of appointment. Furthermore, the Court rejected the High Court’s reliance on educational qualifications, reasoning that the duties performed—cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and gardening—did not inherently require formal education. The Court concluded that the appellants’ extended contributions, absence of any adverse records, and the arbitrary termination of their services amounted to manifest injustice, warranting equitable treatment and the regularization of their employment.
The Apex Court also criticized the misuse of the Uma Devi guidelines, which were intended to differentiate between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments while upholding constitutional principles and curbing backdoor entries. The Court noted that the selective and distorted application of these guidelines undermines their true spirit and purpose.
The Court further emphasized that government institutions must lead by example, avoiding exploitative employment practices and promoting job security. It further underscored that organizations have a responsibility to prevent job discontinuation, especially in scenarios where it could contribute to long-term unemployment.
The Court drew upon the landmark U.S. judgment in Vizcaino vs. Microsoft Corporation, which held that employment status and corresponding rights should be determined by the nature of the work performed, rather than the labels assigned to workers. This case serves as a significant example from the private sector, highlighting the repercussions of misclassifying employees to evade providing rightful benefits.
Accordingly, the orders of the High Court and Tribunal are set aside.
Supreme Court: Illegal or unauthorized constructions cannot be legitimized or protected solely due to passage of time/inaction of authorities/ substantial investments.
The Supreme Court, in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors., held that constructions made in violation of applicable Acts or Rules are illegal and unauthorized, mandating demolition. Such constructions cannot be legitimized or protected by citing the passage of time, administrative inaction, or the investment of substantial funds.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing an appeal against an Allahabad High Court judgment ordering the demolition of unauthorized commercial structures constructed by the respondents on land allotted by the U.P. Housing and Development Board without requisite approvals. Despite several show-cause notices, the respondents failed to take corrective measures, prompting the demolition order.
The appellants argued that the High Court ordered the demolition without issuing prior notice to them or the shop occupants and that it should have explored the possibility of regularization. They also alleged selective enforcement, claiming their rights were unfairly jeopardized. The respondents defended the High Court’s decision, asserting its correctness and necessity.
After considering submissions and relevant precedents, the Supreme Court emphasized that courts must avoid using equitable jurisdiction to regularize unauthorized constructions. It stressed that such structures not only breach the rule of law but also pose risks to occupants, strain resources like electricity and groundwater, and disrupt orderly urban development.
The Court further directed state and union territory governments to issue circulars warning officials of punitive actions for non-compliance with such rulings. It emphasized strict adherence to these directions, with erring officials facing departmental action. Additionally, banks and financial institutions shall sanction loans against buildings only after verifying completion or occupancy certificates. Violations of these directives would attract contempt proceedings and prosecutions under applicable laws.
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
Kerala High Court: Medical reimbursement cannot be denied because the insured underwent treatment in a hospital not approved by the Insurer.
In Mrs. Suma Sunilkumar vs. State Medical Officer, the Kerala High Court held that medical reimbursement cannot be denied because the insured underwent treatment in a hospital not approved by the Insurer. The single-judge bench of Justice C.S. Dias was hearing a writ petition against the inaction of the insurer to pay the medical reimbursement.
The petitioner, an insured employee under the ESI scheme, sought reimbursement for her husband’s emergency liver transplantation. Initially treated at the ESI hospital, he was referred to a higher facility due to the lack of transplantation services. The procedure was approved by the Technical Committee and authorized by the relevant committees. Despite following due process and providing necessary documents, including an emergency certificate as directed by the court, the respondents denied reimbursement, citing technical deficiencies.
The court observed that the ESI hospital lacked the necessary facilities for the procedure, and the patient underwent surgery based on medical advice and prior approval from the respondents. The insistence on an emergency certificate was deemed hyper-technical, especially after the production of the required certificate confirming the urgency of the surgery. Further, the court referred to the Apex Court’s ruling in Shiv Kant Jha vs. Union of India, which held that a medical claim cannot be rejected solely because the hospital is not listed in the Government Order. The primary consideration must be the fact of treatment. Authorities are required to verify whether the claimant received treatment and whether the records, duly certified by the concerned doctors or hospitals, substantiate this. Once verified, the claim cannot be denied on technicalities.
In light of the evidence, the court directed the respondents to process and reimburse the petitioner’s medical expenses within 60 days, ensuring compliance with the law and providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard if necessary.
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Mere recovery of money or hand wash test is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty in bribery cases.
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, in Mohammad Subhan Shah vs. State of J&K, held that the demand for a bribe and its voluntary acceptance is required to be proved, consideration for the demand of money must be there and further, the recovery of money is also required to be proved, in the absence of the demand of bribe the accused cannot be held guilty of the offence for which he has been charged.
The brief facts of the case are as follows. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000 under Section 5(2)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act), 1988 and six months imprisonment under Section 161 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), with both sentences to run concurrently. Failure to pay the fine would result in an additional three months’ imprisonment. The conviction stemmed from a complaint by Mohd. Amin Misgar who alleged that the appellant, then an Accounts Officer in the Electric Commercial Division of the Power Development Department (PDD), demanded a ₹1,000 bribe to forward his inspection report to higher authorities. Following the complaint, a trap was set, and the appellant was allegedly caught with the bribe money in his coat pocket. The trial court found the appellant guilty based on the recovery of the bribe money and a positive phenolphthalein test. However, the appellant contended that the evidence did not substantiate the charges, arguing that the demand for and acceptance of the bribe was not proven.
The complainant’s statement lacked clarity and included inconsistent allegations, such as introducing the issue of T.E. bills during trial, which was not mentioned in the original complaint. Furthermore, the shadow witness, Mushtaq Ahmed Wani, did not corroborate the demand for the bribe, stating only that he observed money being handed over but did not hear any conversation between the appellant and the complainant. The site of the alleged bribe exchange was also disputed, with differing accounts placing it near the office gate, in the market, or on a bridge. Additionally, the site plan was prepared five months after the incident, raising doubts about its reliability.
The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant’s culpability, as neither the demand nor voluntary acceptance of the bribe was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant’s reliability was questioned, particularly due to his strained relationship with the appellant and potential motives to implicate him. The court concluded that the prosecution did not discharge its burden of proof, and reliance on the appellant’s defence statements or the recovery of money alone was insufficient to uphold the conviction.
The judgment emphasized the importance of proving demand and voluntary acceptance in bribery cases and found the trial court’s reliance on circumstantial evidence misplaced.
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sexual intercourse committed against a dead body of a woman, though horrendous, does not constitute rape and is not penalized under IPC.
In Neelkanth @ Neelu Nagesh vs. State of Chhattisgarh and connected matters, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that even though Indian criminal laws do not recognize ‘necrophilia’ as a crime in itself, at the same time the human rights of a dead person cannot be discounted. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides not only for the right to life with dignity and respect, but it also encompasses within its ambit the right to die in a dignified manner and ancillary rights of treatment after death and burial.
The current appeal is filed by the convict/appellant Neelkanth @ Neelu Nagesh and convict/appellant Nitin Yadav, challenging the judgment passed in POCSO Case No. 27/2021 by the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Special Court (POCSO and Rape Cases) Gariyaband, which convicted and sentenced both the appellants. Another petition was filed by the mother of the victim challenging the trial court order that acquitted the appellant-Neelkanth @ Neelu Nagesh of the other offences of the 376 of the IPC, POCSO Act, 2012 and the SC ST Atrocities Act, 1989.
The appellant, Nitin Yadav, was convicted of raping and murdering a 9-year-old girl from a Scheduled Caste, followed by an attempt to dispose of the body with the assistance of co-accused Neelkanth @ Neelu Nagesh. It was alleged that Neelkanth committed necrophilia, an act of sexual violence against the deceased victim, before burying her body. While the trial court convicted Nitin Yadav of rape and murder, it acquitted Neelkanth of charges under Section 376(3) of the IPC (rape of a minor), Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault), and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (offence against a Scheduled Caste). Neelkanth was only convicted under Sections 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC. The acquittal was based on the Karnataka High Court judgment in Rangaraju vs. State of Karnataka, which held that rape, as defined under IPC, necessitates a living victim.
The victim’s mother appealed against the acquittal of Neelkanth, arguing that the heinous act of necrophilia warranted punishment under the applicable laws due to its gravity. The High Court, while dismissing the criminal appeals of both accused and concurring with the trial court’s findings of guilt, upheld the acquittal of Neelkanth on charges of rape. The court acknowledged the horrifying nature of the act but emphasized a lacuna in the law, noting that rape, as defined under the IPC, and offences under the POCSO Act and SC/ST Act, require the victim to be alive at the time of the crime.
Further, the court held that there can be no disagreement on the issue that dignity and fair treatment are not only available to a living man but also to his dead body and every dead body is entitled to respectful treatment but the law as of date has to be applied to the facts of the case and none of the offences as prayed by the learned counsel for the objector can be imposed upon the appellant-Neelkanth @ Neelu Nagesh.
Accordingly, the appeals by the convicts stand dismissed, and co-accused Neelkanth’s bail bonds are cancelled, and is directed to surrender within a period of 15 days from the day of the order failing which he shall be taken into custody for serving out the remaining part of the sentence as has been ordered by the trial Court. The appeal against the acquittal by the victim’s mother is also dismissed.
