Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13603

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, J, MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, A
Rajinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Revenue Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance – Respondent
M.A. No. 754/2025 in O.A.No.182/2023 | M.A. No. 60/755/2025 in O.A. No.98/2023 | M.A. No. 756/2025 in O.A. No.97/2023 | M.A. No. 758/2025 in O.A. No.95/2023 | M.A. No. 805/2025 in O.A. No.96/2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rishav Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC with Sh. Pankaj Khurana

Employees reinstated after wrongful termination are entitled to notional seniority and promotion, ensuring continuity in service despite gaps, as affirmed by judicial interpretation.

Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Implementation of Tribunal’s order - Petitioners were terminated without proper inquiry - Previous orders called for reinstatement with notional benefits - Denial of seniority and promotion contrary to the Tribunal’s directive - The scope of execution includes notional benefits like continuity of service and promotional opportunities, deemed essential even without physical service, thus enforcing equity and fair play in the reinstatement process. (Paras 1-24)

(B) Employment Law - Termination without inquiry - Terminated employees reinstated but denied notional benefits including seniority and promotions, led to execution of order seeking full compliance. The Tribunal reiterated the necessity for implementing not only reinstatement but also the promotion and seniority prospects of wrongfully terminated individuals to maintain fairness in the workplace. (Paras 20-23)

Table of Content
1. execution of multiple applications considered together. (Para 1 , 2)
2. termination without proper inquiry led to applicants' reinstatement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. notional benefits interpretation and claims for seniority. (Para 10 , 13 , 14)
4. judicial precedents affirming entitlement to notional benefits. (Para 15 , 19 , 20)
5. court's directive for full compliance with prior orders. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)

ORDER

Per: HON’BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):

1. All the above Execution Applications are being taken up together as the facts and order to be executed is similar in all these cases. All these Execution Applications have been filed praying that the order dated 10.04.2024 based on order dated 28.11.2020 upheld by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No. 420 of 2022 decided on 10.03.2022 in bunch of petitions and further upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 17898 of 2022 decided on 02.02.2023 be got implemented in its letter and spirit.

2. We require giving a quick glance to the general facts here. For the sake of convenience, we are taking facts from Execution Application No. 754/2025.

3. The applicant was appointed to various posts under Respondent No. 2, maintained satisfactory service, qualified the departmental examination, and was confirmed as Inspector. A CBI case was later registered alleging that he had secured employment on the basis of a forged SSC nomination letter. Although the applicant replied to a show-cause notice, the department did not issue any charge-sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and terminated his services without holding a regular inquiry.

4. Along with the applicant, 25 other officials were also terminated and they challenged their orders before the Tribunal. Their termination was set aside on 29.04.2003 with directions to hold an inquiry. Instead of holding such inquiry in the applicant’s case, the department sought certain documents through an affidavit, which he submitted, but again terminated him without following Rule 14.

5. The matter reached the High Court, which directed the applicant and similarly placed employees to approach the appropriate forum after completion of criminal proceedings. The applicant’s conviction was finally set aside on 23.05.2022, his case being covered by the decision dated 10.05.2016 involving similarly situated employees.

6. After acquittal, the applicant issued a legal notice seeking reinstatement. His OA was allowed by the Tribunal on 10.04.2024, directing reinstatement with notional benefits and actual benefits from the date of joining. A copy of this order is annexed as Annexure EA-1. In earlier similar cases decided on 28.11.2020 and upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court on 10.03.2022 and 02.02.2023, the employees had already been reinstated on 02.03.2023.

7. Since the respondents did not reinstate him despite the Tribunal’s order, the applicant filed Contempt Petition No. 123 of 2024. Only thereafter he was reinstated and pay-fixation orders were issued. The contempt petition was closed on 18.11.2024. Copies of the reinstatement order dated 11.11.2024 and pay-fixation order dated 27/29.01.2025 are annexed as Annexures EA-2 and EA-3.

8. The reinstatement order stated that notional benefits would not include monetary arrears and promotion. The applicant’s pay was fixed at the level of UDC/Sr. TA, ignoring the fact that he had already qualified the promotional examination before termination and that his juniors were promoted in the meantime. The applicant seeks only notional seniority and notional promotion and not monetary benefits. The Tribunal’s order has been interpreted as limiting notional benefits merely to reinstatement, which is contrary to law.

9. Under judicial interpretation, including FR 54-A (Annexure EA- 4), a person reinstated after acquittal is entitled to notional seniority and promotion. No order regarding seniority has been passed by the respondents. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.B. Rajoria

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13603

Employees reinstated after wrongful termination are entitled to notional seniority and promotion, ensuring continuity in service despite gaps, as affirmed by judicial interpretation.

Cases Referred (1)