Authorities must reassess reinstatement claims after termination is set aside, accounting for subsequent cadre changes.

The petitioner was engaged as a Panchayat Karmi in 1995 and was terminated by a Gram Sabha resolution dated 31 January 2003.

The Sub-Divisional Officer set aside the termination on 1 August 2022.

After this Court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner’s claim within 90 days, the respondents rejected his request to return to service on 26 June 2023, relying principally on the closure of the Panchayat Karmi Scheme.

The petitioner challenged that rejection under Article 226.

The State relied on changes to the cadre and recruitment structure, including the conversion of the post into a District Cadre post, and the Scheme’s closure.

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s request to return to service could stand when his termination had been set aside by the Sub-Divisional Officer.

Whether the petitioner’s entitlement and placement required fresh consideration in light of the Scheme’s closure and subsequent cadre and recruitment changes.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court’s approach was that, where a termination has been judicially set aside but subsequent policy or cadre changes may affect the employee’s placement, the competent authority must assess the claim comprehensively, consider the relevant circumstances, and issue a speaking and reasoned order.

The Court acknowledged both the setting aside of the petitioner’s termination and the State’s submissions concerning the intervening cadre changes and closure of the Scheme.

It concluded that the rejection relied on structural policy changes without adequately assessing their application to a person whose termination had been set aside.

Rather than direct reinstatement, the Court set aside the rejection and remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the petitioner’s entitlement and placement on the merits.

The authority must consider the invalidation of the termination, the prolonged litigation, and the operational limits of the current District Cadre Rules or any alternative rehabilitation guidelines, and pass a speaking and reasoned order within four months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.