Case Title: Samir Kumar Majumder Versus the Union of India & Ors.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6027 OF 2014
Decided on: September 20, 2023
Coram: Justice J.K Maheshwari, Justice K.V Vishwanathan
The Supreme Court of India upheld entitlement of individuals to continuity of service from the date of attaining temporary status as a substitute teacher, along with the benefits outlined in the Master Circular dated January 29, 1991.
Two Judge Bench consisting Justice J.K Maheshwari and Justice K.V Vishwanathan had their own opinions on the prevalent issue. Justice J.K. Maheshwari concurred with the majority opinion, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the principles of constructive res judicata. He underscored that parties must present their entire case during litigation and cannot introduce new claims in subsequent proceedings if they could have been raised earlier. Justice Maheshwari supported the decision to bar the appellant’s claim for absorption as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section based on this doctrine. He also emphasized the significance of granting the appellant continuity of service as outlined in the Master Circular dated 29.01.1991, stating that the appellant should receive the benefits from the date he attained temporary status as a substitute teacher.
Justice K.V. Vishwanathan, affirmed the application of the doctrine of constructive res judicata in the case. He echoed the sentiments regarding the necessity for parties to present their entire case during litigation and supported the decision to reject the appellant’s claim for absorption as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section due to failure to raise it in earlier proceedings. Additionally, Justice Vishwanathan endorsed the granting of continuity of service to the appellant as per the provisions of the Master Circular dated 29.01.1991, specifying that the benefits should be provided from the date of attaining temporary status as a substitute teacher.
Factual Matrix:
The case begins with Samir Kumar Majumder, the appellant, being employed as a school teacher at the Railway Higher Secondary School, Alipurduar Junction, teaching mathematics to students. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Calcutta High Court denying him absorption as an Assistant Teacher and continuity of service, Majumder appeals to the Supreme Court of India.
Initially appointed as a Substitute Teacher on December 5, 1989, Majumder alleges that artificial breaks were introduced in his service by terminating and subsequently reappointing him, notably on June 9, 1990, and September 22, 1990, coinciding with school vacations.
To address concerns of further interruptions, Majumder files an application (O.A. No. 209 of 1990) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), seeking to annul termination letters and regularize his service, including salary during breaks. Despite an interim order in his favor, his services are terminated again on November 12, 1994, following the Tribunal’s dismissal of his application.
The Tribunal’s decision, based on a precedent regarding the regularization of substitute teachers, serves as the basis for rejecting Majumder’s claims. However, subsequent Supreme Court rulings in related cases challenge this interpretation, asserting substitute teachers’ entitlement to absorption and continuity of service without requiring selection by the Railway Recruitment Board.
In response to conflicting interpretations, the matter escalates to the Supreme Court, which on February 15, 1996, directs considerations for regular selection, accommodating age limitations with relaxation for one opportunity. Despite textual differences in previous orders, Majumder is subjected to screening by the Screening Committee as per the Master Circular dated January 29, 1991.
Following screening, Majumder is appointed as a Primary Teacher in the Railway Higher Secondary School on January 2, 1998. Dissatisfied with the terms of appointment, particularly the offered pay scale and designation, he files another application (Original Application No. 978 of 1998) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench.
Through this appeal Majumder challenged the offered appointment as a Primary Teacher instead of an Assistant Teacher, discrepancies in pay scales, and entitlement to continuity of service as per the Master Circular dated January 29, 1991, for substitute teachers acquiring temporary status.
The case under consideration involves a dispute regarding the absorption of the appellant as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section and the applicability of the doctrine of constructive res judicata. The appellant initially sought regularization as a primary teacher but later asserted a claim for absorption as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section during subsequent proceedings.
Courts Judgment and Analysis:
The court examined the appellant’s claim and found it untenable, noting that the appellant was initially appointed as a substitute teacher in the pay scale of a primary teacher. The court observed that the appellant did not raise the claim of working as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section during earlier proceedings. Additionally, the court highlighted that the Screening Committee, formed pursuant to the court’s orders, considered and absorbed the appellant only as a primary teacher based on relevant regulations and circulars.
Regarding the doctrine of constructive res judicata, the court cited the principle established in Henderson vs. Henderson, emphasizing that parties are required to present their entire case during litigation and cannot introduce new claims in subsequent proceedings if they could have been raised earlier. The court applied this doctrine to bar the appellant’s claim for absorption as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section, as it had not been raised in previous proceedings.
Furthermore, the court addressed the appellant’s entitlement to continuity of service under the Master Circular dated 29.01.1991. The court held that the appellant should be granted continuity of service from the date he attained temporary status as a substitute teacher. The court rejected the contention that the appellant was denied specific orders regarding continuity of service, asserting that the appellant should receive the benefits outlined in the Master Circular.
In conclusion, the court partially allowed the appeal, directing that the appellant be granted continuity of service from the date of attaining temporary status as a substitute teacher. The court ordered the re-fixing of the appellant’s pay, payment of arrears with interest, and other consequential benefits in accordance with the Master Circular. The impugned order of the High Court was set aside, and the appellant’s entitlement to benefits under the Master Circular was affirmed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi
