Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 7190
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative, Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-Judicial
Kavita Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan through its Commissioner – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00051 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Dinesh Kumar Tandon
For the Respondents: Ms. Pushpila Bisht
The court held that an employee wrongfully terminated is entitled to consequential benefits from reinstatement, barring back wages for the intervening period.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Termination of service - Removal from service quashed, reinstatement directed with consequential benefits except back wages - Contextual interpretation regarding wrongful termination and entitlement to benefits - Hierarchical court decisions upheld previous rulings - Respondents mandated to comply with Tribunal orders. (Paras 2, 8.1, 9.1)
(B) Procedural Fairness - Consequential benefits can be claimed separately in light of prior Tribunal ruling, even if back wages are denied - Res judicata not applicable as prior claim was not fully adjudicated. (Paras 5, 8.2)
Facts of the case:
Applicant removed from service, challenged termination successfully in prior OA but denied back wages. Respondents argue legal grounds for not granting consequential benefits during stay periods.
Findings of Court:
Court clarified that all consequential benefits must be extended to the applicant from removal to reinstatement date, excluding back wages.
Issues: Determining entitlement to consequential service benefits following reinstatement and interpretation of Tribunal orders regarding back pay.
Ratio Decidendi: Tribunal affirmed that previous decisions dictate the continuation of benefits, emphasizing that delays caused by the employer do not fault the employee.
Result: Respondents directed to grant benefits, excluding back wages.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant was wrongfully terminated, and the order was quashed. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding entitlements. (Para 5) |
Per Hon’ble Mr.Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
“The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the Respondents to allow all consequential service benefits mentioned in para 4.12 & 4.13 of the O.A. as a natural consequence of quashing the removal order dated 21.1.2004 vide judgement and order dated 19.9.2013 passed in O.A. No.191 of 2007 and also direct for payment of salary and allowance w.e.f 19.9.2013 (date of judgement & order of Tribunal) upto the date when the Applicant has joined the post i.e. 16.8.2018, together with interest at the market rate with all consequential service benefits Or any other order or direction may also be issued in favour of the applicant.”
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant, appointed as Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) in 1993 under the respondents, was removed from service with effect from 23.09.2002 vide order dated 21.01.2004. The applicant’s challenge to the order dated 21.04.2004 was allowed by this Tribunal in OA No. 191 of 2007 vide order dated 19.09.2013 with the direction that no back wages would be admissible for this period. The Writ Petition No. 1070 of 2014 filed by the respondents against this Tribunal’s order dated 19.09.2013 came to be dismissed on 03.07.2017. The respondents re-instated the applicant in service vide order dated 01.08.2018 and the applicant joined on 16.08.2018. The applicant, in this OA, has prayed for grant of consequential benefits.
3. The applicant’s case is that the order dated 21.01.2004 removing her from service having been quashed by this Tribunal vide order dated 19.09.2013 with the direction that no back wages would be admissible for this period, and the said order having been upheld by Hon’ble High Court on 03.07.2017, she is entitled to all consequential benefits except back wages for the period from the date of removal, i.e., 23.09.2002 till the quashing of order of removal by this Tribunal on 19.09.2013, and thereafter, to all consequential benefits, including salary.
4. The respondents contend that the period of no work cannot be specified as qualifying service. Further, it is averred that this Tribunal’s order dated 19.09.2013 was stayed by Hon’ble High Court on 31.07.2014. As such, during the period of stay, the act of respondents in not re-instating the applicant was legal. Moreover, the order of Hon’ble High Court did not modify the order of this Tribunal in respect of the back wages.
5. We have heard both the parties. The learned counsel for the applicant emphasized that OA No. 191 of 2007 was allowed except for back wages by this Tribunal which was upheld by Hon’ble High Court and, therefore, all consequential benefits, except wages from the date of removal till the date of quashing of the order of removal by this Tribunal, should be allowed to the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, averred that the prayer for consequential benefits was not granted by this Tribunal in the order dated 19.09.2013 in OA No. 191 of 2007 and as such the applicant is barred by the principle of res judicata from agitating the same issue in this OA.
6.1 On perusal of the judgment & order dated 19.09.2013 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 191 of 2007, it is noticed that the following relief was claimed by the applicant therein:
“Present O.A. is preferred under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
“8. The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned removal order dated 21.01.2004 passed by Respondent No. 2, contained in Annexure No. 1, and issue further directions to treat the applicant still in service and pay the applicant entire arrears of pay, allowances and increments etc. as a consequence of quashing the removal order. Any ot
