Back
V. KAMESWAR RAO, ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
Sonu Kumar, Bpm – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 45858/2022
1. This application has been filed by the applicant Harmesh Choudhary with following prayers:
"It is therefore, most respectfully, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:
(a) Issue appropriate directions to the official respondents to extend the benefit of judgment dated 16.01.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.11973/2016, to the applicants/respondents thereby reinstating them and treating them at par with the petitioners; and/or
(b) Pass any other order, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."
2. The facts as noted from the application are that the petitioner along with 65 other similarly placed persons had filed an Original Application being OA 2910/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal., for short) primarily challenging various termination orders issued on June 24, 2015. The OA was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated August 30, 2016. The said judgment of the Tribunal became a subject matter of challenge before this Court in a writ petition being W.P.(C) 11973/20
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that similarly placed persons challenging termination orders should be treated alike, and the benefit of a judgment should be extended to them,....
The legal principle that similarly situated persons should be treated equally, subject to exceptions of laches and delays, was central to the court's decision.
Relief granted by the court to similarly situated persons should be extended to all, subject to exceptions such as laches and delays, and acquiescence.
Reinstatement of a worker inherently includes continuity of service, entitling them to benefits from the initial date of joining.
Reinstatement of employees following wrongful termination entitles them to full back wages and benefits from the date of original appointment, barring employer proof of alternative employment.
The court affirms the applicability of a judgment in rem to similarly placed employees, emphasizing that relief should not be denied based on delay or laches.
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
