When a dismissal order is substituted with a lesser penalty like censure and the employee is reinstated, the administrative authority must independently evaluate the claim for continuity of service and seniority, regardless of whether a court explicitly ordered such benefits in previous proceedings.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. A. R. Thacker, learned Advocate, waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 3.

2. Heard Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Siddhharth Rami, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Mr. A. R. Thacker, learned Advocate for the respondent No.3.

3. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“A. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order(s) dated 05.08.2017 and 07.09.2017 at Annexure-A and Annexure-AC;

B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or directions directing the Respondents to grant benefit of continuity of services to the Petitioner and benefits arising thereto;

C. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant any other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in interest of justice.

D. Award Costs.”

4. The short controversy germane in the matter is in regards to the non-granting of continuity of service to the petitioner by the respondent authority, once they reinstated her in the service.

The history of the case is a little bit checkered one, inasmuch as the petitioner was dismissed from service by respondent No.3-college on 26th March, 2001, later on substituted to censure.

4.1. At the relevant point of time, the order of dismissal first challenged before the Service Tribunal and having failed before it, the petitioner appears to have challenged it before this Court by way of writ petition, being Special Civil Application No. 16923 of 2003. It further appears that during its pendency, the petitioner had shown her willingness to give up the claim of back wages if the respondent - College Management is ready to re-consider the order of dismissal. In pursuance to the direction issued by this Court, the respondent - College Management appears to have revisited the aspect of penalty and on 2nd July, 2005, passed an order, whereby, the order of dismissal was substituted to censure. Nonetheless, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide its judgment and order dated 19th January, 2009, dismissed the aforesaid writ petition.

4.2. Thereafter, the petitioner appears to have filed an appeal, being Letters Patent Appeal No. 1233 of 2009, which was disposed of vide order dated 4th October, 2011, mainly on the ground that once the order of dismissal from service converted to censure, the appeal does not survived by virtue of subsequent developments, and the entire challenge renders infructuous. At the same time, it has been observed by the Division Bench of this Court that upon withdrawal of the order of dismissal, the petitioner would be entitled to seek reinstatement in active service.

4.3. As the subject in question, for which the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-College, is discontinued, it was observed in said order that an appropriate decision may be taken by the respondent-State to treat the petitioner as surplus teacher and she may be absorbed in other educational institution.

4.4. Apropos to the aforesaid order, respondent No. 2 appears to have c