Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, NANGAL & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
ARUNA SAINI – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL No.3350 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.31965 of 2015)
Decided On : 28-02-2017
Facts of the case:
The Respondent was appointed as a temporary Social Studies Teacher on 20.07.1994 against a leave vacancy. The vacancy arose due to the non-joining of Smt. Raj Verma who availed leave from 15.07.1993 to 17.07.1993 and did not report later.
Smt. Raj Verma was dismissed w.e.f. 15.11.1994 for her unauthorised absence. Thereafter the Respondent was appointed on a permanent basis in the post subject to outcome of the case filed by Smt. Raj Verma.
Smt. Raj Verma was reinstated on 14.07.2003 in view of the decision of the Court in her favour. On 15.07.2003, the Respondent was relieved.
The Respondent filed a Civil Suit for mandatory injunction directing the Appellants herein to reinstate her by declaring the order dated 15.07.2003 as illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice.
The decree and judgment of the Trial Court was modified in favour of the Appellants by the First Appellate Court.
The Respondent approached the High Court by filing a Regular Second Appeal.
The High Court restored the judgment of the Trial Court and set aside the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment does not require interference.
Result: Appeal disposed of. Service law – Termination – Only 24 hours notice given before termination – No opportunity to furnish explanation – Termination bad in law – Appointment subject to outcome of case filed by previous teacher – But Respondent did work for 9 years on regular basis – Previous teacher superannuating in the meantime – Respondent requesting for appointment on the resulting vacancy – Trial court rightly holding respondent entitled reinstatement from the date of superannuation of previous teacher. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The Respondent was appointed as a temporary Social Studies Teacher on 20.07.1994 against a leave vacancy. The vacancy arose due to the non-joining of Smt. Raj Verma who availed leave from 15.07.1993 to 17.07.1993 and did not report later.
Smt. Raj Verma was dismissed w.e.f. 15.11.1994 for her unauthorised absence. Thereafter the Respondent was appointed on a permanent basis in the post subject to outcome of the case filed by Smt. Raj Verma.
Smt. Raj Verma was reinstated on 14.07.2003 in view of the decision of the Court in her favour. On 15.07.2003, the Respondent was relieved.
The Respondent filed a Civil Suit for mandatory injunction directing the Appellants herein to reinstate her by declaring the order dated 15.07.2003 as illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice.
The decree and judgment of the Trial Court was modified in favour of the Appellants by the First Appellate Court.
The Respondent approached the High Court by filing a Regular Second Appeal.
The High Court restored the judgment of the Trial Court and set aside the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment does not require interference.
Service law – Termination – Only 24 hours notice given before termination – No opportunity to furnish explanation – Termination bad in law – Appointment subject to outcome of case filed by previous teacher – But Respondent did work for 9 years on regular basis – Previous teacher superannuating in the meantime – Respondent requesting for appointment on the resulting vacancy – Trial court rightly holding respondent entitled reinstatement from the date of superannuation of previous teacher. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The Respondent was appointed as a temporary Social Studies Teacher on 20.07.1994 against a leave vacancy. The vacancy arose due to the non-joining of Smt. Raj Verma who availed leave from 15.07.1993 to 17.07.1993 and did not report later.
Smt. Raj Verma was dismissed w.e.f. 15.11.1994 for her unauthorised absence. Thereafter the Respondent was appointed on a permanent basis in the post subject to outcome of the case filed by Smt. Raj Verma.
Smt. Raj Verma was reinstated on 14.07.2003 in view of the decision of the Court in her favour. On 15.07.2003, the Respondent was relieved.
The Respondent filed a Civil Suit for mandatory injunction directing the Appellants herein to reinstate her by declaring the order dated 15.07.2003 as illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice.
The decree and judgment of the Trial Court was modified in favour of the Appellants by the First Appellate Court.
The Respondent approached the High Court by filing a Regular Second Appeal.
The High Court restored the judgment of the Trial Court and set aside the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment does not require interference.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
The Suit filed by the Respondent seeking a direction to the Appellants to reinstate her as Social Studies Teacher in Shivalik NAC High School, Naya Nangal was decreed which was modified in the First Appeal filed by the Appellants. The First Appellate Court held that the Respondent only had a right to be considered for appointment and was not entitled for a direction of reinstatement. The High Court reversed the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The said judgment of the High Court is in challenge before us.
2. The Respondent was appointed as a temporary Social Studies Teacher on 20.07.1994 against a leave vacancy. The vacancy arose due to the non-joining of Smt. Raj Verma who availed leave from 15.07.1993 to 17.07.1993 and did not report later. By an order dated 03.12.1994, the Executive Officer-cum-Member Secretary, Shivalik NAC High School, Naya Nangal dismissed Smt. Raj Verma w.e.f. 15.11.1994 for her unauthorised absence. Vide Resolution No.3 dated 15.11.1994 the Respondent was appointed as a Social Studies Teacher on a permanent basis in the post that fell vacant due to the termination of services of Smt. Raj Verma. One of the conditions of the appointment of the Respondent was that she will not be entitled to claim any right if Smt. Raj Verma succeeded in the case filed by her. Smt. Raj Verma was reinstated on 14.07.2003 in view of the decision of the Court in her favour. On 15.07.2003, the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, Nangal relieved the Respondent on the ground that her services were no longer required in view of the reinstatement of Smt. Raj Verma.
3. The Respondent approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition challenging the termination of her services and withdrew the same with liberty to approach the Labour Court. She later filed an application for modification of the order with liberty to file a Civil Suit. The said application was allowed by the High Court on 03.09.2004.
4. Pursuant to the liberty given by the High Court, the Respondent filed a Civil Suit for mandatory injunction directing the Appellants herein to reinstate her as a Social Studies Teacher in the Shivalik NAC High School, Naya Nangal by declaring the order dated 15.07.2003 as illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. The Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rupnagar, Nangal by a judgment and decree dated 16.11.2004 directed the Appellants herein to reinstate the Respondent as Social Studies Teacher w.e.f. 01.09.2004. The Trial Court also held that the Respondent was entitled for all the consequential benefits attached to the post of Social Studies Teacher w.e.f. 01.09.2004. It was further held that the Respondent was entitled for all the dues from 01.09.2004 with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum. The Civil Court held that the order of termination dated 15.07.2003 was violative of principles of natural justice. Taking note of the fact that Smt. Raj Verma attained superannuation and retired from service on 31.08.2004 and that the Respondent worked as a regular employee for a period of 9 years, the Trial Court directed reinstatement of the Respondent w.e.f. 01.09.2004.
5. The decree and judgment of the Trial Court was modified in favour of the Appellants by the First Appellate Court. It was held that the Respondent only had a right of being considered for appointment to the post as and when it fell vacant. The Respondent approached the High Court by filing a Regular Second Appeal assailing the judgment of the First Appellate Court. The High Court restored the judgment of the Trial Court and set aside the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court. The High Court held that the Respondent worked for a period of 9 years as a regular teacher. She was granted annual increments and there were deductions from her salary towards provident fund. The High Court held that the Appellants ought to have adju
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
