Bombay High Court
Pradeep Rajkumar Jain vs Mr. T. Shrinivasan, The Joint ... on 12 October, 2021
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, G. A. Sanap
1 CP130-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 130/2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1780/2009 (D)
(PRADEEP RAJKUMAR JAIN VERSUS T. SHRINIVASAN, THE JOINT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
STEEL, NEW DELHI-110 107 & OTHERS)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order
and Registrar's orders.
Shri K. Deogade, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Masood Shareef and Shri A.J. Mirza, counsel for the R-2 to 4.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND G.A. SANAP, JJ.
DATED : 12TH OCTOBER, 2021.
The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.1780 of 2009 challenging the
order dated 12.08.2008 removing him from service from the post of Deputy
Manager (Finance). By the judgment dated 04.04.2017 this Court partly
allowed the writ petition and after setting aside the orders passed by the
Disciplinary and Appellate Authority directed reinstatement of the petitioner in
service within a period of one month with continuity but without back wages.
The petitioner was reinstated on 07.05.2017. Since the petitioner was not
granted the benefit of promotion/increments, the present contempt petition
came to be filed.
According to the respondent nos.2 and 3, the petitioner is not entitled to
the benefit of promotion/increments which has been so communicated to the
petitioner on 23.03.2021. In the said communication, reference has been made
to the decision in State of Haryana & Others Versus O.P. Gupta [1996 Scale (1)
602]. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 submits that in view
of the law laid down in the aforesaid decision and there being no specific
direction as regards entitlement of the petitioner to all consequential benefits
flowing from the order of reinstatement, the petitioner would not be entitled for
promotion/increment.
The learned counsel for the petitioner however by relying upon the
decision in Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao Versus Kosan Industries (P) Ltd.
[2020 SCC OnLine SC 138] submits that that since the relief of continuity of
service has been granted, the petitioner would be entitled to all the benefits that
flow from such direction.
2 CP130-21.odt
We find from the decision in A.P. State Road Transport
Corporation & Others Versus Abdul Kareem [(2005) 6 SCC 36]
wherein reference has been made to an earlier decision in A.P. SRTC Versus
S. Narsagoud [(2003) 2 SCC 212] that there is a difference between an
order of reinstatement accompanied by a simple direction for continuity of
service and the direction where reinstatement is accompanied by a specific
direction that the employee shall be entitled to all the consequential
benefits which would include the benefit of increments during that period.
This Court while granting relief to the petitioner had directed reinstatement in
service alongwith continuity of service but without back wages. Though the
respondent nos.2 and 3 in the light of aforesaid law may be justified in denying
the relief of promotion/increments what has to be seen is whether benefit of
continuity in service is actually granted. In the present context continuity of
service would include the benefit accrued in favour of the petitioner for purposes
of pensionary and other benefits by notionally treating him to be in employment
from 12.08.2008 till he was reinstated.
Since the aforesaid position is not clear on record, the respondent nos.2
and 3 shall file an affidavit indicating the manner in which the benefit of
continuity of service has been granted to the petitioner.
It is seen that the respondent nos.2 and 3 have
subsequently on 08.04.2021 initiated disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner and have thus suspended him from service. The petitioner has
sought to challenge that order dated 08.04.2021 in the present contempt
petition.
We find that the order dated 08.04.2021 gives a separate cause of action
to the petitioner for which he can invoke the appropriate jurisdiction if he is
aggrieved by the said action. In the present contempt petition the Court is
concerned only with the grievance as regards non-compliance/disobedience of
the order dated 04.04.2017 in Writ Petition No.1780 of 2019. It is clarified that
prayer clauses (e) to (g) in the contempt petition would not be considered and
the petitioner is free to take appropriate steps to seek those reliefs in separate
proceedings.
3 CP130-21.odt
The respondent nos.2 and 3 shall file their affidavit by 28.10.2021.
Stand over to 28.10.2021.
(G.A. SANAP, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
APTE
