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.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent State.

2. This petition has been filed for direction upon the concerned respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of pay increments since from the date of their original appointment being made in the year 2012 and accordingly the current pay of the petitioners may be fixed and consequential monetary benefits may be released in favour of the petitioners. Further prayer is made to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of continuity of their services since from the date of their original appointment made from the year 2012 in view of the fact that the services of the petitioners reinstated in pursuance of the order and direction of this Court passed in W.P. (S) No.1562 of 2014 and other analogous cases by judgment dated 12.08.2016 on quashing and setting aside of the order of termination of services of the petitioners. Further prayer is made to pay the full pay and allowances in the applicable scale of pay to the petitioners for the period from 26.02.2014 i.e. when the petitioners were dismissed from their services.

3. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that pursuant to newspaper advertisement being Advertisement No.1/2008 for appointment of Sub Inspector / Sergeant and Company Commander the petitioners have applied for that post. By way of referring Annexure-1 which is the advertisement, he submits that Clause 7 of the Advertisement stipulated that the candidates opting for Sub Inspector, Sergeant and Company Commander has to indicate their order of preference and further by way of referring Clause 13 of the said advertisement he submits that inter-se seniority of two candidates having score of same marks shall be decided on the basis of their performance in written examination. He submits that the petitioners have qualified in terms of advertisement and they have been issued appointment letters by way of Annexure-2 series in the year 2012. He further submits that the petitioners gave their joining on 30.11.2012 on the post of Company Commander in the Home Guard Head Quarter contained in Annexure-3 and thereafter the petitioners were deputed and sent for in-service training at Police Training Centre College, Hazaribagh and during the course of training, the final examination of petitioners of internal subjects were taken. He then submits that in pursuance of the enquiry being conducted in relation to the selection of the petitioners a decision taken to rectify the earlier selection list. In view of the revision of the result, a direction was issued to remove petitioners from their services under different categories under Rule 668 (Ka) of the Police Manual. The forty-two candidates including the petitioners were removed from services and dismissal orders dated 26.02.2014/26.02.2013 was issued whereby the petitioners were dismissed contained in Annexure-4 series.

4. He submits that the petitioners have challenged the same in W.P. (S) No.1553/2014, W.P. (S) No.1567/2014, W.P. (S) No.1848/2014 respectively before this Court. He then submits that the writ petitions were allowed by the common judgment dated 12.08.2016 and the termination order was quashed on the principle of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikash Pratap Singh & Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. reported in (2013) 14 SCC 494 and termination order was quashed and set aside and the respondents were directed to pass an order for reinstatement of the petitioners in service against existing/anticipated or future vacancies, treating it to be fresh appointments and on their reinstatement, they shall be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of the revised merit list.

5. He further submits that the order of the learned Single Judge was challenged in L.P.A. No.473 of 2016 along with other analogous L.P.As and the Division Bench by judgme