Karshanbhai Ramjibhai Jaladiya vs District Development Officer And Anr.
- Neutral2018 INSC 242
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an employee has been terminated and not reinstated despite pendency of litigation spanning decades, and no vacancies exist at the time of adjudication, compensation may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement, the quantum to be assessed by reference to the employee's length of service and the prolonged nature of the litigation. In this case, five years of service and three decades of litigation warranted enhancement of compensation from Rs. 1,85,000 to Rs. 6,50,000. Where an employee has been wrongfully terminated but cannot be reinstated due to absence of vacancies, the employer may be ordered to provide preferential appointment rights for any future vacancies, subject to the employee's eligibility. In disposing of employment disputes by compensation rather than reinstatement, courts may base their award of monetary relief on the entire circumstances including the length of service, delay in resolution, and the principle that the interest of justice requires an appropriately substantial settlement.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
KARSHANBHAI RAMJIBHAI JALADIYA Appellant (s)
VERSUS
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2950 OF 2018
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 15678 OF 2016]
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants are aggrieved since they have not been granted reinstatement in service while their juniors were retained by the first respondent.
During the pendency of the litigation, spanning over three decades, Sh. Khimjibhai Muljibhai Mahida (appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2950/2018) expired and hence, the litigation is pursued by his legal representative.
3. When this matter came up for admission before this Court, we directed Sh. H.P. Raval, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, to get 2 instruction as to whether there are any vacancies available, either as Work Charged Clerk or Carpenter.
Today, on instruction, Sh. Raval submits that there is no vacancy available as of now. It is also explained that one junior happened to be retained in service pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court in the facts of that case. Be that as it may, we find that the workmen had around five years of service and, therefore, compensation awarded to them to the tune of Rs. 1,85,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Eighty Five Thousand) seems to be on the lower side.
Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the prolonged litigation pursued by the parties reaching upto this Court, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the compensation is fixed at Rs. 6,50,000/-
(Rupees Six Lakhs and Fifty Thousand) each, in addition to the amounts already paid, in full and final settlement of the entire claims of the appellants. The appeals are allowed to the above extent.
4. We make it clear that in the case of Sh.Karshanbhai Ramjibhai Jaladiya (appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2949/2018), he shall be entitled to preferential appointment in case any future vacancy arises, either as Work Charged Clerk or as Carpenter, 3 subject to eligibility.
5. We make it clear that this amount shall be paid in addition to the amount already paid to the appellants as per the directions of the High Court.
The amount shall be paid within a period of six weeks from today.
6. We further make it clear that this Judgment is passed in the peculiar facts of this case and, therefore, shall not be treated as a precedent.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR ]
New Delhi;
MARCH 19, 2018.
4
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.5 SECTION III
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 15576/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-04-2016 in LPA No. 2097/2007 13-04-2016 in SCA No. 8684/2000 passed by the High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad)
KARSHANBHAI RAMJIBHAI JALADIYA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH SLP(C) No. 15678/2016 (III)
Date : 19-03-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Saroj Haresh Raichura, Adv.
Mr. Kalp Raichura, Adv.
Mr. Haresh Raichura, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. H. P. Raval, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Abhaid Parikh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated in the signed non-reportable Judgment.
Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
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