LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

In the facts and circumstances of this case, we modify the decree and judgment of the Trial Court as follows: The Respondent is entitled for reinstatement w.e.f. 01.09.2004. She would be entitled to fifty per cent of the back wages between 01.09.2004 and the date of her reinstatement. The Respondent is entitled for salary and other allowances from the date of her reinstatement till the date of her superannuation.

                                                              Non-Reportable


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CIVIL APPEAL No.3350   of   2017
                  (Arising out of SLP (C) No.31965 of 2015)

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, NANGAL & ORS.
                                                           .... Appellant(s)
      Versus
ARUNA SAINI
                                                             ….Respondent(s)

                               J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
      Leave granted.
       The  Suit  filed  by  the  Respondent  seeking  a  direction  to  the
Appellants to reinstate her as Social Studies Teacher in Shivalik  NAC  High
School, Naya Nangal was decreed which  was  modified  in  the  First  Appeal
filed  by  the  Appellants.   The  First  Appellate  Court  held  that   the
Respondent only had a right to be considered for  appointment  and  was  not
entitled for a direction of reinstatement.   The  High  Court  reversed  the
judgment of the First Appellate Court and restored the judgment  and  decree
of the Trial Court.   The said judgment of the High Court  is  in  challenge
before us.
2.    The Respondent was appointed as a temporary Social Studies Teacher  on
20.07.1994 against a leave vacancy.  The  vacancy  arose  due  to  the  non-
joining of Smt. Raj Verma who availed leave from  15.07.1993  to  17.07.1993
and did not report later.   By an  order  dated  03.12.1994,  the  Executive
Officer-cum-Member  Secretary,  Shivalik  NAC  High  School,   Naya   Nangal
dismissed Smt. Raj Verma w.e.f. 15.11.1994  for  her  unauthorised  absence.
Vide Resolution No.3 dated 15.11.1994 the  Respondent  was  appointed  as  a
Social Studies Teacher on a permanent basis in the  post  that  fell  vacant
due to the termination of services of Smt. Raj Verma. One of the  conditions
of the appointment of the Respondent was that she will not  be  entitled  to
claim any right if Smt. Raj Verma succeeded in the case filed by her.   Smt.
Raj Verma was reinstated on 14.07.2003 in view of the decision of the  Court
in her favour.  On  15.07.2003,  the  Executive  Officer  of  the  Municipal
Council, Nangal relieved the Respondent on  the  ground  that  her  services
were no longer required in view of the reinstatement of Smt. Raj Verma.
3.    The Respondent approached the High Court by  filing  a  Writ  Petition
challenging the termination of her  services  and  withdrew  the  same  with
liberty to approach the Labour Court.   She later filed an  application  for
modification of the order with liberty to  file  a  Civil  Suit.   The  said
application was allowed by the High Court on 03.09.2004.
4.    Pursuant to the liberty given by the High Court, the Respondent  filed
a Civil Suit for mandatory injunction directing  the  Appellants  herein  to
reinstate her as a  Social Studies Teacher in the Shivalik NAC High  School,
Naya Nangal by declaring the order dated 15.07.2003  as  illegal,  unlawful,
arbitrary  and  in  violation  of  principles  of  natural   justice.    The
Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rupnagar, Nangal by  a  judgment  and
decree dated 16.11.2004 directed the  Appellants  herein  to  reinstate  the
Respondent as Social Studies Teacher w.e.f.  01.09.2004.   The  Trial  Court
also held that  the  Respondent  was  entitled  for  all  the  consequential
benefits attached to the post of Social Studies Teacher  w.e.f.  01.09.2004.
It was further held that the Respondent was entitled for all the  dues  from
01.09.2004 with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum.  The  Civil
Court held that the order of termination dated 15.07.2003 was  violative  of
principles of natural justice.  Taking note of the fact that Smt. Raj  Verma
attained superannuation and retired from service on 31.08.2004 and that  the
Respondent worked as a regular employee for a period of 9 years,  the  Trial
Court  directed  reinstatement  of  the  Respondent  w.e.f.  01.09.2004.  5.
The decree and judgment of the Trial Court was modified  in  favour  of  the
Appellants by the First Appellate Court.   It was held that  the  Respondent
only had a right of being considered for appointment  to  the  post  as  and
when it fell vacant.   The Respondent approached the High Court by filing  a
Regular Second Appeal assailing the judgment of the First  Appellate  Court.
The High Court restored the judgment of the Trial Court and  set  aside  the
judgment of the Lower  Appellate  Court.   The  High  Court  held  that  the
Respondent worked for a period of 9 years as a  regular  teacher.   She  was
granted annual increments and there were deductions from her salary  towards
provident fund.  The High Court held  that  the  Appellants  ought  to  have
adjusted the Respondent in an available  vacancy  taking  into  account  the
long period of service rendered by her on a regular basis.   The High  Court
found fault with the judgment of the First Appellate Court by  holding  that
fresh consideration of the  case  of  the  Respondent  would  only  lead  to
multiplication of the litigation.  The High  Court  was  informed  that  the
Respondent had two more years of service left and in view  of  the  hardship
suffered by the Respondent due to her termination, the High Court held  that
the Trial Court was right  in  directing  reinstatement  with  consequential
benefits.
6.    After going  through  the  material  on  record  and  considering  the
submissions made by the parties, we are of the opinion that the judgment  of
the High Court does  not  warrant  interference.   The  termination  of  the
services of the Respondent is in clear violation of  principles  of  natural
justice as reasonable  opportunity  was  not  given  to  the  Respondent  to
furnish her explanation. Admittedly, notice of a mere 24 hours was given  to
the Respondent before the order of termination  was  passed.    Undoubtedly,
the regular appointment of the Respondent was on a condition that she  would
make way for Smt. Raj Verma in the event of her succeeding  in  the  pending
case.  The fact remains that the Respondent worked on regular  basis  for  a
period of 9 years before the termination of her services.   Thereafter,  the
Respondent made a representation to the Appellants to  appoint  her  in  the
vacancy that had arisen due to the  superannuation  of  Smt.  Raj  Verma  on
31.08.2004.  However, the Appellants did not consider such request  made  by
the Respondent.  If the termination is bad in law,  the  Respondent  in  the
normal course,  would  be  entitled  for  reinstatement  from  the  date  of
termination with all consequential benefits  as  the  termination  order  is
illegal.   But,  in  view  of  the  condition  of  the  appointment  of  the
Respondent on 20.07.1994, the Trial  Court  held  that  the  Respondent  was
entitled  for  reinstatement  only  w.e.f.   01.09.2004   i.e.   after   the
superannuation of the incumbent Smt. Raj Verma.
7.    The notice issued by this Court in the present case was  limited  only
for the payment of arrears.  Counsel for the Appellants submitted  that  the
Respondent is not entitled for payment of salary and  other  allowances  for
the period of 10 years during which she did not work and we  find  force  in
the said submission.  In the  facts  and  circumstances  of  this  case,  we
modify the decree and judgment of the Trial Court as follows:
The Respondent is entitled for reinstatement w.e.f. 01.09.2004.   She  would
be entitled to fifty per cent of the back wages between 01.09.2004  and  the
date of her reinstatement.
The Respondent is entitled for salary and other allowances from the date  of
her reinstatement till the date of her superannuation.
The Respondent will be entitled to count the service from 2004  onwards  for
the purpose of computation of her pension, if any payable.


8.    With the aforesaid modification of the  decree  and  judgment  of  the
Trial Court, the Appeal is disposed of.  No costs.


........................................J
        [S. A. BOBDE]




                   ....……................................J
                                                   [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

New Delhi,
February  28, 2017