Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, C.J., MUNNURI LAXMAN, J.
Chittorgarh Central Coop. Bank Limited – Appellant
Versus
L.R. of Shri Kishan Sharma S/o Ganpat Lal Sharma – Respondent
D.B. Spl. App. Writ No. 460 of 2023
Decided On : 01-05-2024
APPEAL - EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION - ACT SECTION LIST - The court discussed the legal implications of interim orders and their effect on employment rights. It highlighted that an interim order does not grant entitlement to salary if the final order upholds the termination. The court emphasized that the principle of no benefit from an interim order applies when the ultimate relief is denied, influencing its decision to dismiss the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal arises from a writ petition where the petitioner, Shrikrishan Sharma, challenged his termination from the Chittorgarh Central Cooperative Bank. He was initially reinstated due to an interim order but sought salary for the period he was not allowed to work despite the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while there was an interim order in favor of the petitioner, the final judgment upheld the termination, thus denying entitlement to salary for the period he did not work.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary for the period between 30.03.2014 and 24.04.2015 during which he was not allowed to work despite an interim order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an interim order does not confer entitlement to salary if the final order validates the termination. The principle that no party benefits from an interim order if the ultimate relief is denied was central to the decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order directing payment of salary for the disputed period was set aside, resulting in the dismissal of the writ petition.
ORDER :
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.01.2023, passed by the learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3714/2018 (LRs of Shrikishan Sharma Vs. Chittorgagh Central Cooperative Bank & Anr.), whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners (respondents herein) was allowed with a direction to the respondent (appellant herein) to pay the entire salary and benefits due for the period from 30.03.2014 to 24.04.2015 to the petitioners, after due determination and computation thereof.
2. Facts in nutshell for adjudication of the present appeal are that the respondent-writ petitioner Shrikrishan Sharma was initially employed and worked as a Manager in a village level Cooperative Society/Bank. Vide order dated 03.10.2013, passed by the Managing Director, the petitioner was appointed as Loan Supervisor in Chittorgarh Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Later on vide order dated 29.03.2014, services of the petitioner were terminated as his appointment order was withdrawn. The action of the petitioner Bank was assailed by the respondent by way of filing a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2635/2014. In the aforesaid petition an interim order was passed on 07.04.2014 by which the effect and operation of the termination order dated 29.03.2014 was stayed.
3. It appears that pursuant to this interim order, the writ petitioner was reinstated on 24.04.2015 on which he continued till his retirement on 31.07.2017.
4. The petitioner filed a second writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3714/2018, seeking issuance of mandamus for payment of salary with interest @ 12 % per annum for the period from 30.03.2014 to 24.04.2015 on the ground that though the interim order was passed by this Court on 07.04.2014, reinstatement took place only with effect from 24.04.2015. Once, there was an interim order passed by this Court, the employer was obliged under the law to reinstate him forthwith and, therefore, until the date of actual reinstatement i.e. 24.04.2015, the entire salary is liable to be paid.
5. Though, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2635/2014 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, other writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3714/2018 was allowed with the direction for payment of salary with respect to the period from 30.03.2014 to 24.04.2015.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2635/2014 having been dismissed and the order of termination having been upheld, the writ petitioner was not entitled for any salary for the period during which he had actually not worked. It is submitted that though there was an interim order passed on 07.04.2014, the fact remains that the writ petitioner was allowed to work only from 24.04.2015. If the action of the respondent in terminating the services of the writ petitioner is found to be just and valid, the interim order, which merged in the final order, would justify the action of the respondent in not reinstating the petitioner and, therefore, except the period for which he had actually worked, he would not be entitled to payment of salary.
7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgments rendered in the cases of Jagpal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2023 SCC Online SC 1080, State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. S.K. Khosla & Ors. (2007) 15 SCC 777 and Shri Chamundai Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Assn. (1992) 3 SCC 1.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that though, the writ petition was dismissed, the appellant was under obligation to reinstate the respondent-petitioner forthwith under the interim order which was delayed until 24.04.2015. As there was an order of this Court for reinstatement, staying effect and operation of the termination order, with effect from the date of the order, the writ petitioner was entitled to work and salary. Due to inaction on the part of the appellant, the writ petition
An interim order does not create an entitlement to salary if the final order upholds the termination of employment.
Reinstated employees are entitled to count the dismissal period towards continuous service and receive corresponding benefits unless expressly limited by the reinstatement order.
It is well settled that one who comes to the Court, he must come with clean hands. In the present case, the petitioners have approached this Court with unclean hands and, have made every effort to dr....
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.
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
