Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M.Nagarajan, Died vs The General Manager, on 7 February, 2024
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION No.8467 of 2013
ORDER:
Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Standing counsel for respondent-Corporation.
2. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking
a direction to the respondents to fix the petitioner's seniority in
appropriate place and also to fix up the petitioner's pay while
considering continuity of service along with back wages and
other benefits.
3. The petitioner was working as a Conductor in the
respondent-Corporation and it is submitted that on account of
his ill-health, he applied for leave against the wishes of the
respondent-management. It is submitted that the resignation
letter of the petitioner was fabricated by the respondent-
Corporation in the year, 1984. On the strength of the alleged
fabricated resignation letter the service of the petitioner was
terminated. The petitioner filed O.S.No.328 of 1984 on the file
of Principal District Munsif Court, Chittoor seeking declaratory
order. The suit was decreed in part and the petitioner had filed
an appeal aggrieved against the rejected claim. The District
Court, Chittoor vide order dated 28.02.1997 in A.S.No.61 of
1991 passed an order as prayed for. The District Court has
declared the orders of termination issued by the Depot Manager
as null and void and also directed the defendants therein to
treat the plaintiff as if he is in service from 11.04.1984
onwards.
4. The respondent Corporation issued an office order dated
29.01.1998 calling upon the petitioner to join the duty at
B.Kothakota Depot. The order also states that the period from
11.04.1984 till he reports to his new place shall not be counted
for increments, back wages and other attendant benefits.
5. The petitioner instead of reporting to the duty, sent a
legal notice through his counsel calling upon the respondent to
pay increments back wages and other attendant benefits apart
from promoting the petitioner. After receipt of the said notice
respondent Corporation has not responded to the same.
6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that
the termination was held illegal by the competent Civil Court
and that the order has attained finality and has also placed
reliance on the judgments Krishi Mandi Samithi Vs. ADJ
Mhow1, K.Kumar Vs. HPFCC Whole Sale Stores2 and
M/s.Hindustan Tin Works Pvt.Ltd Vs. The Employee of M/s.
Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd and others3.
7. The Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court held
that once the termination order is set aside, the employee must
be deemed to be in the position as it existed and obtain prior to
the passing of the order of termination of his service.
8. The Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court
has also taken a similar view that once an order of termination
is set aside, the employee would be entitle for retrospective
promotion apart from entitlement of back wages.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Hindustan Tin
Works Pvt. Ltd and others has clarified that once the
workman is reinstated, the employee shirk is held responsible
of paying the wages which the workman has been reached for
by the illegal or invalid action of the employee.
CDJ 1989 MPHC
1998 (2) LLN 324
(1979) 2 SCC 80
10. Learned Standing counsel for the respondent-Corporation
submits that there is no necessity for the respondent-
Corporation to resort to fabricating the letter of resignation of
the petitioner and that it is a habit to the same of the
employees of the Corporation to sign differently and submit
letters. The said contention cannot be adjudicated by this
Court at this point of time, as the same has been considered by
the Civil Court in trial. Thus, this Court is not inclined to go
into the aspect of the alleged forgery of the resignation letter as
set out by the petitioner or otherwise.
11. The learned Standing counsel further submits that when
there was a direction to the petitioner, he was required to join
the duty at B.Kothakota Depot, the petitioner instead of joining
the duty has chosen to address a legal notice calling upon the
respondent-Corporation to promote the petitioner on par with
his co-employees and also to pay the back wages. Learned
Standing counsel also submits that the petitioner has to first
join the duty, the other claims of the petitioner could have been
considered by the respondent-Corporation, if he updated to
duty. However, on account of the negligence of the petitioner in
reporting to duty, the petitioner cannot claim any relief from
this Court. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner
passed away on 03.02.2020 and the legal heirs are brought on
record. The petitioner No.1 has reached the age of
superannuation on 03.04.2011 and as such, the grant of relief
of reinstatement or promotion cannot be considered at this
stage. All that this Court can consider is whether the petitioner
is entitled for the payment of back wages, arrears of salary and
all consequential retirement benefits. The petitioner would be
entitled for back wages till 29.01.1998 i.e., when the petitioner
was called upon to join duty. As the petitioner choose not to
join duty the petitioner would not be entitled for any back
wages from 29.01.1998 onwards.
12. In the result, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the
respondents to release all service benefits due payable to the
petitioner along with back wages from the date of termination
till 29.01.1998, when the petitioner was called upon to join the
duty. The respondents are further directed to release all the
terminal benefits due payable to the petitioner. The
respondents shall comply with the orders within a period of six
(06) weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Date: 07.02.2024
NKA
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Date: 07.02.2024
NKA
