Back
2006 Supreme(Raj) 396
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Ajay Rastogi
Sualal Yadav - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6486 of 2003
Decided On : 02/08/2006
Mr. Prahalad Singh, for the Petitioner.
Mr. B.K. Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate, for the State.
Headnote:
Dismissal - Reinstatement - Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - C.O. Arumugam vs. State T.N. 1990 (1) SLR 288, Union of India vs. Madhusudan Prasad, 2004 (1) SCC 43, K.M. Mohnot vs. Bank of Rajasthan, 1994 (1) WLC 729, State of Har. vs. Jaswant Singh, 2003 (4) SLR 410
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was wrongfully dismissed from service, and after a prolonged legal battle, the dismissal was set aside. The petitioner sought reinstatement with all consequential benefits, including future promotions, which he claimed he was entitled to during the period of wrongful dismissal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, upon reinstatement, should be treated as if he had been in service for all practical purposes, entitling him to benefits, including promotion, unless otherwise withheld under court orders or statutory rules.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, upon reinstatement, was entitled to future promotions and other benefits that accrued during the period of wrongful dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that reinstatement involves restoring the individual to the position from which they were dismissed, entitling them to benefits as if they were in service for all practical purposes, including promotion. The court also considered the exemption from departmental examinations for employees over 45 years of age.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion from the date his contemporaries/juniors were promoted, without the qualification test hindering his consideration. The petitioner was to be promoted from the date his juniors were promoted, with notional pay fixation and consequential revision of pensionary benefits.
Key Points from the Legal Document:
- The petitioner was wrongfully dismissed from service, and the dismissal was ultimately set aside by the court, leading to reinstatement (!) [17000006110001].
- The petitioner joined service in 1948 and was dismissed in 1964, with subsequent legal proceedings leading to the setting aside of the dismissal in 1984 (!) [17000006110001].
- After the court's judgment, the petitioner was reinstated in 1989, with benefits including pension and pay extended to him, despite his retirement occurring before the final judgment (!) [17000006110005].
- The core issue was whether, upon reinstatement, the petitioner was entitled to benefits such as promotions and higher pay, considering he was treated as if he had been continuously in service (!) [17000006110006].
- The court held that reinstatement restores the individual to their original position as if the wrongful dismissal had not occurred, entitling them to all benefits, including promotion and pay, unless specifically withheld by court orders or statutory rules (!) [17000006110016].
- The petitioner argued that, due to wrongful dismissal, he was prevented from working and from being considered for promotion during that period, and he was entitled to promotion from the date similarly situated juniors were promoted (!) [17000006110013].
- The court emphasized that, under relevant service rules, once a wrongful dismissal is set aside, the employee should be treated as if they had not been dismissed, including being considered for promotions and benefits accruing during the period of wrongful dismissal (!) [17000006110016].
- The petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion from the date his juniors or contemporaries were promoted, and if found suitable, he should be promoted accordingly, with his pay to be fixed notionally for all practical purposes (!) [17000006110022].
- The court clarified that the petitioner, due to his age, was exempt from certain qualifying tests for promotion, and the primary consideration was his entitlement based on service rules and the court's decision (!) [17000006110019].
- The final direction was for the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, with appropriate pay fixation and pension benefits, and to complete this exercise within four months (!) [17000006110022].
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
Ajay Rastogi, J.-This is second round of litigation with the grievance that in view of dismissal from service being set aside by this Court (DB) vide judgement dated 08.03.1984 in Special Appeal (Writ) No. 9/1977, petitioner became entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits which according to him, include future promotions, to which he became entitled for during period when he was not permitted to serve the Government on account of his wrongful dismissal from service.
2. Indisputably, petitioner joined service in erstwhile State of Jaipur as sub Inspector on 10.02.1948 and after integration of States, he was appointed as Sub Inspector in subordinate police service. While posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Badnor (Bhilwara) he was served with charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (“CCA Rules”) on 25.09.1962 and after holding inquiry, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 13.07.1964 against which he preferred appeal and review petition which were also rejected vide orders dated 25.06.1966 and 25.03.1969.
3. Against these aforesaid orders dated 13.07.1964, (punishment of dismissal from service), 25.06.1966 and 25.03.1969 (rejection of appeal and review petition), CWP No. 764/1969 was preferred which was dismissed in 1972 and special appeal was also dismissed; however, the SLP filed by petitioner was allowed and the matter was remanded to this Court vide order dated 15.09.1975 and the Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 25.08.1976, dismissed CWP No. 764/1969 against which Special Appeal (Writ) No. 9/1977 was preferred. The Division Bench allowed special appeal
vide Judgment dated 08.03.1984 operative part whereof reads as under:-“In the result, this special appeal is allowed, the order dated 25.08.1976 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside, the writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed and the order (Annexure-20) dated 13.07.1964, passed by the Inspector General of Police dismissing the appellant from service; the order (Exhibit-22) dated 25.06.1966, passed by the State Government in appeal and the order (Exhibit-23) dated 25.03.1969 passed by the Governor rejecting the review petition of the appellant, are quashed.”
4. Against aforesaid direction issued by Division Bench in special appeal, the State preferred SLP (Civil) No. 11856/1984, which was dismissed by Apex Court vide order dated 211.1988.
5. During such ordeal litigation, petitioner attained age of superannuation on 31.07.1981 and in the course whereof , a number of his colleagues who either joined service or were juniors to him or his contemporaries, were promoted upto the post of Deputy and Additional Superintendent of Police till their age of superannuation, as has been pleaded in instant petition.
6. After his dismissal being set aside by this Court vide Judgment dated 28.03.1984, respondents reinstated the petitioner in service on the post of Sub Inspector vide order dated 310.1989 and benefits flowing from holding post of Sub Inspector were extended to him including pensionary benefits as he had already attained age of superannuation on 31.07.1981 much before DB Judgment , ibid. Hence, this petition.
7. Only contention advanced by Counsel for petitioner is that once order of dismissal being set aside by this Court, he ought to have been treated in service for all practical purposes, meaning thereby he became entitled for all benefits particularly promotion and fixation as a consequence whereof accrued on higher promotional posts from the date persons who joined service alongwith him or thereafter being juniors but while reinstating him vide order dated 310.1989, pursuant to DB Judgment , ibid, it was treated as if he remained as Sub Inspector on which he initially joined way back in 1948; and such action of respondent is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.
8. Counsel further contends that be
