SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(SC) 86

2002(2) Supreme 108
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B. Pattanaik, R.P. Sethi and Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Gurpreet Singh -Appellant
versus
State of Punjab & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 548 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14430/2001)
Decided on 18-1-2002

IMPORTANT POINT
Continuity of service cannot be denied when termination of service is held illegal and order for reinstatement is passed though denying arrears of salary for period for which the person has not served.

Headnote:Service Law-Order of termination of services of appellant by D.I.G. held illegal by lower appellate court in civil suit and Court ordered for reinstatement-Court however held that plaintiff was not entitled to any arrears of salary for which he had not served-In appeal by plaintiff High Court confirmed decree of lower appellate Court and further added that plaintiff will not be entitled to continuity of service-Appeal-Continuity of service could not be denied once plaintiff was directed to be reinstated on setting aside order of termination-So far as arrears of salary was concerned, no infirmity with direction issued by lower appellate Court. (Para 3)

       

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The Plaintiff is in appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in a second appeal. The plaintiff s services stood terminated and he filed the suit for declaring the order of termination null and void. The suit was dismissed. The lower appellate Court, however, on re-appreciation of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the order passed by the D.I.G. must be held to be illegal and consequently directed that the plaintiff should be reinstated in service. Having directed so, the first appellate court categorically held that the plaintiff will not be entitled to any arrears of salary for the period for which he has not served. The plaintiff assailed the appellate decree by filing a second appeal claiming that he would be entitled to the arrears of salary. The High Court by the impugned order not only confirmed the decree of the lower appellate court that the plaintiff will not be entitled to any arrears salary, but also further added that the plaintiff will not get his continuity of service. The plaintiff, therefore, is in appeal before this Court.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on examining the materials on record, we fail to understand how the continuity of service could be denied once the plaintiff is directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination. It is not a case of fresh appointment, but it is a case of reinstatement. That being the position, direction of the High Court that the plaintiff will not get continuity of service cannot be sustained and we set aside that part of the impugned order. So far as the arrears of salary is concerned, we see no infirmity with the direction which was given by the lower appellate court taking into account the facts and circumstances including the fact that the suit was filed after a considerable length of time. That part of the decree denying the arrears of salary stands affirmed and this appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated above.

Appeal allowed partly.

**************

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top