Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Nagar Nigam Kanpur Nagar vs Brijbala Tewari

Supreme Court10 July 2017R. Banumathi · Kurian Joseph

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where service rules mandate consultation with the Public Service Commission before termination of service, the failure to carry out such consultation renders the termination order invalid, notwithstanding any other procedural considerations that may otherwise support the termination. When a termination order has been set aside for failure to follow mandatory consultation requirements, the employee whose termination is quashed becomes entitled to retiral and pensionary benefits on the basis that the period from the date of termination to the date of superannuation shall be treated as notional service for the purpose of computing pension and pensionary benefits, even though no actual back wages are payable for that period.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8754 OF 2017 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 12852 OF 2014

NAGAR NIGAM, KANPUR NAGAR & ORS. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

DR. (SMT.) BRIJBALA TEWARI & ANR. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This is a case where the first respondent was

terminated from service in the year 1997 after a

regular service of around 10 years and adhoc service

of around 14 years.

3. The termination was held to be bad for want of

consultation with the Public Service Commission, as

mandated under the service rules. Though the learned

counsel appearing for the appellants has made a

persuasive attempt that the issue is covered in their

favour, we are afraid, the contention cannot be Signature Not Verified

appreciated for the reason that this is a case where Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.08.05 12:46:58 IST Reason:

the service rules have specifically provided for a

mandatory consultation. Admittedly, that 2

consultation has not taken place. Therefore, all the

decisions canvassed by the learned counsel may not be

of any avail in the facts of the present case.

4. The High Court has upheld the order passed by the

Administrative Tribunal dated 01.04.2011. The

operative portion of the order reads as follows :-

“In view of the observations made above, the Claim Petition is allowed. The impugned order of punishment of dismissal from service dated 07.02.1997 contained as Annexure No. 1 to the Claim Petition, is hereby set aside with all consequential service benefits except back wages for which the department is at liberty to take decision as per rules. Since the Petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2004, therefore, as a result of setting aside of the impugned order of punishment, the Petitioner would also be entitled for the retiral benefits as per rules.”

5. In the peculiar facts of the case, we make it

clear that Respondent No. 1 shall be entitled only to

the retiral benefits in terms of the rules, treating

her service from the date of termination to the date

of superannuation as notional. In other words, that

period will be counted only for the purpose of

pension and pensionary benefits. There will not be 3

any actual backwages for the said period. The

benefits, as above, shall be computed and disbursed

within a period of three months from today.

6. With the above observations and directions, this

appeal is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]

.......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI ]

New Delhi;

July 10, 2017.

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