Facts
The petitioner was appointed as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) in 1990 and was put off duty on 17 February 1994. A charge-sheet was issued approximately nine years later, on 30 July 2003, culminating in his removal from service on 19 March 2008. His departmental appeal was rejected on 26 March 2010.
Source reference: p.1, para.1The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), in OA 1214/2011, quashed the removal and appellate orders, directed reinstatement with continuity of service, and ordered that the period during which the petitioner was put off duty be treated as spent on duty for all purposes, excluding arrears of Time Related Continuity Allowance, “with all consequential benefits”.
Source reference: p.2, para.2The respondents’ review application and subsequent writ petition were dismissed.
Source reference: p.2, para.3The petitioner was ultimately reinstated with effect from 11 August 2017, after contempt proceedings were initiated.
Source reference: p.2, para.4A DPC convened in 2018 considered the petitioner for promotion to Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS), and he was promoted with effect from 28 September 2018.
Source reference: p.3, para.5The petitioner claimed promotion from the date on which his batch mates and juniors had been promoted. His representation was rejected on the ground that the CAT’s earlier order had not granted consequential benefits.
Source reference: p.3, paras.6–7The CAT dismissed his subsequent OA 2088/2020, leading to the present writ petition.
Source reference: p.3, paras.8–10Issues
1. Whether the CAT’s direction quashing the petitioner’s removal order “with all consequential benefits” entitled him to consideration for promotion as MTS from the date on which his batch mates and juniors were promoted.
Source reference: p.4, para.11; p.7, paras.15–182. Whether the pendency of the respondents’ review application justified their failure to consider the petitioner’s case in the DPC convened in 2013.
Source reference: p.6, paras.10–12; p.7, para.173. Whether the petitioner was entitled to retrospective promotion and consequential pay and retiral benefits, and if so, to what extent actual monetary benefits could be granted.
Source reference: p.7–8, para.20Law Applied
The Court applied the principle that when an order of punishment and the appellate order are quashed with “all consequential benefits,” the employee must ordinarily be restored to the position he would have occupied had the disciplinary proceedings not intervened, including consideration for promotion in the relevant DPC.
Source reference: p.5–6, para.13The Court relied on Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109, concerning the sealed-cover procedure and promotion-related consequences where disciplinary proceedings are ultimately exonerated; Gurpal Singh v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, (2012) 13 SCC 94; and Government of NCT of Delhi v. Kuldeep Singh, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2957, in support of restoring the employee’s service position following invalidation of disciplinary action.
Source reference: p.5–6, para.13The Court further held that pendency of a review application, in the absence of a stay, does not justify non-compliance with a final judicial order.
Source reference: p.7, para.17However, retrospective/notional pay fixation does not automatically entitle an employee to back wages for a period during which he rendered no service.
Source reference: p.8, para.20(iii)Reasoning
The Court found that both the respondents and the CAT had misread the CAT’s earlier judgment: paragraph 12 expressly quashed the punishment and appellate orders “with all consequential benefits,” while also directing reinstatement with continuity of service.
Source reference: p.4, paras.11–12Consequently, the petitioner was required to be considered for promotion in the next DPC convened with his batch mates and juniors.
Source reference: p.7, paras.15–18The respondents’ admitted failure to consider him in the 2013 DPC could not be justified by the pendency of the review application, since the CAT’s order remained operative and had not been stayed.
Source reference: p.7, paras.15–18His later consideration in the 2018 DPC did not cure the earlier non-compliance, because it did not assess his entitlement as it stood in 2013.
Source reference: p.6–7, paras.14–16At the same time, because the petitioner had not actually rendered service before 11 August 2017, the Court declined to award back wages for that period, while permitting notional pay fixation and actual monetary benefits from the date of reinstatement.
Source reference: p.8, para.20(iii)Holding
The Court set aside the CAT’s judgment dated 17 December 2020 and allowed the writ petition.
The respondents were directed to convene a review DPC to consider the petitioner’s case as it ought to have been considered in the 2013 DPC.
Source reference: p.7–8, para.20(i)If found fit, he was to be promoted as MTS from the date on which his batch mates and juniors were promoted.
Source reference: p.8, para.20(ii)His pay was to be notionally fixed in the promotional scale, with actual monetary benefits from 11 August 2017; the benefit was to continue until superannuation, followed by recomputation of retiral benefits.
Source reference: p.8, para.20(iii)–(iv)Compliance was directed within four months.
Source reference: p.9, para.22Original Court PDF
Jagbir SinghvsUnion Of India & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
