Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANSHUMAN, J.
Jitendra Pd. Sharma Son of Ram Pyaray Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar Through the Chief Secretary. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2325 of 2020
Decided on : 05-04-2024
Service Law – Reinstatement – consequential benefits – the Hon'ble D.B. at the time of deciding the LPA categorically directed the authorities of the B.S. pollution Control Board to reinstate the appellants (including the petitioner) to their respective posts w.e.f. 28.04.2003 – it means that there is entitlement of the petitioner for payment of wages as the removal letter has been quashed by the H.C. and also to grant all benefits for which the petitioner was entitled from that particular date and it ought to be continued – though was not regularized on 28.04.2003, but regularization was made on 11.12.2018 and the 2nd rider in the regularization letter that back wages shall not be paid to him is in gross violation of the instructions made by the Hon'ble LPA Bench and hence that condition is set aside for the petitioner – further, period of service calculated from the date of rejoining has also been made in violation of the order passed by the L.P.A. Bench which cleary directs that petitioner and others shall be reinstated w.e.f. 28.04.2003 and hence this condition is also set aside for the petitioner – order passed by the LPA Bench has to be respected in its true spirit – not only the salary but other benefits attached to the salary of the petitioner has also been directed to be paid – petitioner directed to file fresh representation along with the order demanding all benefits – B.S. Pollution Control Board directed to grant express benefits to the petitioner within 90 days – writ petition allowed. (Paras 10, 11 & 12)
(2019)17 SCC 184 – Referred
JUDGMENT :
ANSHUMAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Bihar State Pollution Control Board and learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for grant of following reliefs:-
b. For directing the respondents to disburse the salary of the petitioner for the period 28/04/2003 to 08/01/2015, i.e., from his illegal removal to his reinstatement.
c. For directing the respondents to contribute and disburse the EPF of the petitioner from May 2003 to 8/1/2015 .
d. For directing the respondents to compute and disburse the salary of the petitioner with 6th and 7th pay revisions as applicable.
e. For directing the respondents to disburse the Earned Leave and Gratuity of the petitioner after computation of his length of service from his initial joining in the parent organization.
f. For directing the respondents to disburse the pension of the petitioner after computation of his length of service from his initial joining in the parent organization.
g. For issuance of any other appropriate writ/s order/s or direction/s as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has joined the respondent-Board on contractual basis with effect from 20.12.1988. Counsel submits that after two years of his joining he was appointed against the sanctioned vacant post on ad hoc basis vide office order No.40 dated 20.02.1991. Counsel submits that though Board is an independent unit, but not drafted its own Service Rules and it was decided that the rules of State of Bihar shall apply upon the employees of the Board. Counsel submits that in the 68th and th of Board Meeting dated 07.07.2001 and 12.02.2002, the decision for the regularization of the petitioner with other similarly situated was taken. But prior to regularization the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 28.04.2003. The petitioner has challenged the said order before this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No.4568 of 2003 and subsequently in L.P.A. No.242 of 2008. Counsel submits that vide order dated 19.07.2013 passed in LPA No.242 of 2008, the order of removal of the petitioner from the service was quashed and it has been specifically directed to the Board to reinstate the petitioner and other similarly situated persons with effect from 28.04.2003 i.e., from the date of termination. Counsel further submits that the Board has challenged the order passed in LPA No.242 of 2008 before Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.29637 of 2013, but the said LPA was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 18.12.2014 and the order passed by Hon’ble LPA Bench was affirmed. Counsel submits that finally vide Office Order No.02 dated 08.01.2015, the services of the petitioner was reinstated on the same post with effect from 28.04.2003. Counsel submits that though the reinstatement of the petitioner was done since his removal was held as illegal by this Court, but his salary and other allowances for the said period with effect from 28.04.2003 to 08.01.2015 were not paid. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the reinstatement of the petitioner was made in 2015 in the scale of 9300-4200-34400, but the grade pay of 4200 was denied to him. He further submits that vide Office Order No.166 dated 11.12.2018, the services of the petitioner was regularized with other similarly situated persons (Annexure-4). Counsel submits that in the said letter of regularization there were three conditions imposed and those conditions were imposed to defy the direction of this Hon’ble Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled for Gratuity, Earned Leave, PPF amount, benefits of 6th and 7th pay revision. Counsel further submits t
In cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the standard, and any conditions limiting these entitlements must align with judicial directives and estab....
Wrongful termination without employee fault, later quashed, entitles full back wages for absence period and ACP increments with service continuity, rejecting 'no work no pay' where employee willing b....
In cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement with back wages is the norm unless the employer can prove the employee was gainfully employed during the termination period; the burden of proof lies w....
Reinstatement after acquittal does not automatically entitle a dismissed employee to back wages for the dismissal period, particularly if the dismissal was grounded on conviction.
The competent authority's discretion in determining pay and allowances for reinstated employees and the denial of back wages must be in line with the relevant rules and regulations.
An acquitted employee in a criminal case is entitled to back wages for the period of enforced absence from service when the dismissal was set aside due to unfair trial in departmental proceedings.
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
