In Brief
The appellants were appointed as Hindi Translators and promoted on ad hoc or officiating basis to Assistant Director (Official Language) before the 2002 Recruitment Rules came into force. BSNL later regularised their pay by removing the FR-35 restriction through corrigendum in accordance with the 2002 Rules. The Supreme Court held that the 2002 Rules were implemented in Kerala, vesting the appellants with regularisation rights before the 2005 Rules superseded them. The High Court erred in reviewing its earlier judgment relying on Mishri Lal, whose facts were distinct (non-implementation in Uttar Pradesh). The Court allowed the appeals and directed reinstatement and monetary benefits.", <parameter name="cited_cases">[{"raw_citation":"(2011) 14 SCC 739", "case_name":"BSNL v. Mishri Lal & Ors.", "cited_year":"2011", "paragraph":"8, 13, 19, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39", "treatment":"distinguished", "treatment_by":"this_court", "treatment_quote":"the judgment in Mishri Lal cannot be applied to the present case as the facts that obtained in the said case are distinct...In Mishri Lal it was noted that the respondents therein were never regularly promoted as Hindi Officers at any point of time...But in the instant case the facts are totally distinct...When such being the factual and legal position, we find that the High Court has misread the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Mishri Lal and has applied it to the case of the appellants herein in a straight-jacket manner"}, {"raw_citation":"AIR 1983 SC 852", "case_name":"Y.V. Rangaiah & Ors. v. J. Sreenivasa Rao", "cited_year":"1983", "paragraph":"31", "treatment":"referred", "treatment_by":"this_court"}]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.