Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 1549
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, CJI., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Shivam Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent
Review Petition (Civil) No. 3290 of 2018; Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23148 of 2013
Decided On : 21-01-2019
Salman Khurshid, Adv., Imtiaz Ahmed, Adv., Naghma Imtiaz, Adv., Ahmed Zargham, Adv., Lubna Naaz, Adv., Kunika, Adv., Equity Lex Associates, Adv., Aishwarya Bhati, Adv., Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv., Stuti Chopra, Adv.
Upon reinstatement, an employee may be entitled to backwages and consequential benefits, even if the special leave petition against the reinstatement order has been dismissed.
Headnote:
Review Petition - Employment Dispute - The court reviewed the dismissal of a special leave petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the reinstatement of an employee who had been initially dismissed due to submitting a false affidavit regarding criminal cases. The court allowed the review petition and directed the payment of backwages and consequential benefits to the employee upon reinstatement.
Fact of the Case:
The employee's appointment was cancelled due to submitting a false affidavit regarding criminal cases, but the Division Bench of the High Court reinstated the employee with backwages and other benefits. The special leave petition against this order was initially dismissed by the Supreme Court without notice to the employee.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the review petition, setting aside the previous order and directing the payment of backwages and consequential benefits to the employee upon reinstatement.
Issues: The main issue was whether the employee would be entitled to backwages upon reinstatement, considering the dismissal of the special leave petition and the reinstatement order by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: Upon reinstatement, the employee was entitled to backwages and consequential benefits, as affirmed by the court's decision to allow the review petition and direct the payment of such benefits.
Final Decision: The review petition was allowed, and the court directed the payment of all backwages and consequential benefits due to the employee upon reinstatement.
ORDER
1. This review petition is filed by the respondent of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23148/2013 against an order dated 12.7.2013 by which the Bench comprising of Justice H.L. Dattu and Justice Dipak Misra, as Their Lordships then were, dismissed the said special leave petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh with directions.
2. Few facts need mention in brief infra to appreciate the controversy involved in the review petition.
3. By order dated 9.9.2011, the learned single judge of the Allahabad High Court cancelled the appointment of the review petitioner on the ground that the petitioner at the time of his recruitment/appointment, had submitted a false affidavit giving incorrect information with regard to coloumn provided for declaration in respect of criminal cases registered or pending against the prospective appointee. The learned single Judge found that the review petitioner had a criminal case pending against him i.e. Case Crime No. 379/2005 under Sections 147, 323, 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Maudarwaja, District Farrukhabad.
4. The aforesaid order was reversed by the Division Bench of the High Court in appeal, by its order dated 3.10.2012. The Division Bench further ordered reinstatment in service with backwages and all other consequential benefits.
5. The special leave petition against the said order was dismissed by this Court on 12.7.2013. However, while dismissing the said special leave petition, this Court had clarified that the review petitioner (respondent in the special leave petition) will not be entitled for any backwages. The aforesaid order was passed ex-parte and without issuing any notice to the review petitioner (respondent in the special leave petition). Aggrieved, this review petition has been filed.
6. As the order of this Court, dated 12.7.2013, refusing backwages to the petitioner was without any notice to the review petitioner, we had deemed it appropriate to list this review petition for open Court hearing. As the said order was without any notice to the review petitioner, we have no hesitation in setting aside the said part of the order and in rehearing the parties on the said aspect of the case.
7. Learned counsel for the State, while objecting to the prayer for payment of backwages, has drawn the attention of the Court to the merits of the order passed by the learned single Judge and also to the reasons which had weighed with the authority in approving the cancellation of the appointment of the review petitioner.
8. As the special leave petition of the State against the order of the Division Bench had been dismissed and reinstatement has been ordered, we do not see how that part of the order of the Division Bench can be looked into again by us. The only question that has to be considered by this Court is whether upon reinstatment, the review petitioner would be entitled to backwages. If the Division Bench of the High Court had thought it proper to reinstate the review petitioner in service, by interfering with the order of the learned single Judge, and further to direct the payment of backwages to the review petitioner, and the special leave petition of the State has been dismissed, we do not see how and why the review petitioner should be deprived of the backwages.
9. In the facts of the case, while affirming the order of dismissal of the special leave petition, we direct that all backwages and consequential benefits as may be due to the review petitioner upon reinstatement, shall be paid to him forthwith.
10. The review petition is accordingly allowed.
