Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors.
- SCC(2002) 9 SCC 492
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a court sets aside an order of termination of service and directs reinstatement, continuity of service must be granted to the employee, as reinstatement is restoration to the original position and not a fresh appointment; denial of continuity of service is therefore inconsistent with the direction to reinstate. Where an employee's termination is set aside and reinstatement is ordered, the denial of arrears of salary may be upheld where justified by the facts and circumstances of the case, including delay in filing the suit for relief.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. The Plaintiff is in appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in a second appeal.
The plaintiff's services stood terminated and he filed the suit for declaring the order of termination null and void. The suit was dismissed. The lower appellate Court, however, on re-appreciation of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the order passed by the D.I.G. must be held to be illegal and consequently directed that the plaintiff should be reinstated in service. Having directed so, the first appellate court categorically held that the plaintiff will not be entitled to any arrears of salary for the period for which he has not served. The plaintiff assailed the appellate decree by filing a second appeal claiming that he would be entitled to the arrears of salary. The High Court by the impugned order not only confirmed the decree of the lower appellate court that the plaintiff will not be entitled to any arrears salary, but also further added that the plaintiff will not get his continuity of service. The plaintiff, therefore, is in appeal before this Court.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on examining the materials on record, we fail to understand how the continuity of service could be denied once the plaintiff is directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination. It is not a case of fresh appointment, but it is a case of reinstatement. That being the position, direction of the High Court that the plaintiff will not get continuity of service cannot be sustained and we set aside the part of the impugned order. So far as the arrears of salary is concerned, we see no infirmity with the direction which was given by the lower appellate court taking into account the facts and circumstances including the fact that the suit was filed after a considerable length of time. That part of the decree denying the arrears of salary stands affirmed and this appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated above.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free