Reinstatement with continuity of service entitles employee to notional pay fixation but precludes back wages. The High Court considered whether a judicial direction to "continue the services" of a terminated probationer implies a fresh appointment or a restoration of previous service. The Court determined that such language necessitates granting continuity of service from the original appointment date. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to notional pay fixation and increments as if he had remained in service. However, the Court clarified that back wages are not an automatic consequence of reinstatement, especially when the relief is granted on equitable grounds rather than a finding of illegal termination. The ruling maintains the petitioner’s status as a probationer for the duration specified by the apex court while denying claims for arrears or promotions during the period he was out of service. Would you like a summary of the legal reasoning regarding the effect of withdrawing a miscellaneous application before the higher court?

The Petitioner was appointed as a Temporary Chauffeur on probation in the Delhi High Court on 14.06.2013

His services were terminated on 04.03.2016 for failing to complete probation successfully

After his challenges were dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court, the Supreme Court, vide order dated 15.02.2022, set aside the termination based on an undertaking by the Petitioner and directed the High Court to "continue the services" of the Petitioner initially on probation for two years

Upon rejoining on 21.03.2022, the High Court treated his appointment as fresh and rejected his representation for continuity of service

The Petitioner withdrew a Miscellaneous Application from the Supreme Court seeking clarification and filed the present writ petition for continuity of service, back wages, and seniority

1. Whether the unconditional withdrawal of a Miscellaneous Application from the Supreme Court bars the Petitioner from filing a substantive writ petition for the same relief

2. Whether the Supreme Court’s direction to "continue the services" entitles the Petitioner to continuity of service, back wages, and other consequential benefits

Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1985, regarding the termination of temporary employees

Arrears of salary are not an "inevitable or inexorable consequence" of reinstatement, as per U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey

The principle established in Mahabir Prasad v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Jagdish Chander v. Delhi Transport Corporation that "continuity of service" entitles an employee to notional pay fixation and increments, but not necessarily back wages for the period spent out of service

The Court held that the withdrawal of the Miscellaneous Application was not a bar, as the Supreme Court did not adjudicate the merits or foreclose the Petitioner's rights

Regarding the merits, the Court interpreted the Supreme Court’s phrase "continue the services" as an express grant of continuity

The Court observed that the Supreme Court’s order was passed ex debito justitiae (out of justice/mercy) based on an undertaking, rather than a finding that the original termination was illegal

The Petitioner is entitled to "continuity" for the purpose of pay fixation—treating him as having remained in service for increment purposes—but he is not entitled to back wages (arrears) because he did not work during that period

The Court further reasoned that since the Petitioner was directed to remain on probation for two years post-rejoining, claims for promotion during the break period were unsustainable

The prayer for back wages/arrears from 2016 to 2022 is denied; the prayer for promotion is denied as the Petitioner remains on probation; and the issue of seniority remained open for future adjudication