Delhi High Court
Surinder Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr on 16 May, 2016
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7710/2015
Date of decision: 16th May, 2016
SURINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Yudvir Singh Chauhan, Advocate.
versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Standing
Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
Surinder Singh by this writ petition impugns order dated 23rd
April, 2015, whereby OA No.2442/2013 has been dismissed by the
Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
2. The petitioner, a Driver, after a departmental enquiry had
suffered an order of removal from service with effect from 3rd
February, 1996. This order of removal was set aside by the Tribunal
by order dated 10th August, 2009 passed in TA No. 330/2009. The
operative portion of the said order relating to consequential
relief/benefits reads as under:-
"10. We hereby direct the respondents to
reinstate the applicant in service but he will be
entitled to 25% of the back wages till the date of
his reinstatement. However, he should be deemed
as to have continued in service. He is to be given
fixation of salary on that basis. For the purpose
of back wages salary which he was drawing as on
the date of his removal alone need be taken into
consideration. Implementation orders are to be
issued within two months from today. We make
no order as to costs."
3. The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the
Delhi Transport Corporation. Aggrieved, the Delhi Transport
Corporation had filed Civil Appeal No.6011/2010, which was
disposed of by the Supreme Court vide order dated 24th May, 2013.
The said order reads:-
"ORDER
This appeal has been preferred against the
impugned judgment and order dated 20th
January, 2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 371 of
2010 by way of which the Central Administrative
Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 10th
August 2009 passed in TA No. 330 of 2009 had
allowed the application filed by the respondent-
employee and directed the reinstatement with
continuity of service and 25% of the back wages.
It is not necessary for us to go into the facts in
detail. The misconduct stood proved against the
respondent-employee and he has not challenged
the judgment and order either of the Central
Administrative Tribunal or of the High Court.
The respondent-employee had already been
reinstated and he has been working since long.
So far as the case of the appellant-Delhi
Transport Corporation is concerned, the only
grievance raised by Dr.Monika Gussain, learned
counsel for the appellant had been that the
respondent ought not to have been given the
continuity of service, and back wages to the
extent of 25% by the Tribunal.
Mr.Ghan Shyam Vasisht, learned counsel for the
respondent has opposed it on the ground that in
case the continuity of service is not granted, it
will amount to break in service and his
reinstatement will be termed as re-employment
which is not permissible in law. He has also
opposed the relief in further reducing the back
wages below the extent of 25%.
So far as the question of continuity is concerned,
the reinstatement in such a case would amount to
re-employment of the workman and that will be
too harsh considering the nature of the charge.
In view of the above, we do not agree with the
learned counsel for the appellant relating to
continuity of service and that submission does
not require any further order. So far as the back
wages are concerned, in lieu of 25% of the back
wages, an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs shall be paid
by the Corporation to the respondent-employee
in lump sum within a period of three months
from today."
4. The aforesaid order according to us is lucid and clear. On back
wages, the Supreme Court had interfered and instead of 25% back
wages, an amount of Rs.1.5 lakh was directed to be paid to Surinder
Singh. However, the Supreme Court had refused to interfere with the
other directions given by the Tribunal. On the direction of continuity
in service, the Supreme Court had observed that reinstatement would
amount to re-employment resulting in break in service, which would
be too harsh a punishment considering the nature of charge. Thus, the
Delhi Transport Corporation had raised the question of
"reinstatement" and continuity in service with reference to the
directions of the Tribunal, but recording reasons, the Supreme Court
had refused to interfere. Consequently, the direction of the Tribunal
that Surinder Singh would be deemed to have continued in service
and the said continuation of service would be counted for fixation of
salary after the Surinder Singh rejoins was upheld and affirmed.
5. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal has
erred in the impugned order in holding that the Supreme Court had
reversed this direction of the Tribunal in their earlier order dated 10th
August, 2009. This finding of the Tribunal is erroneous and wrong.
6. Surinder Singh is deemed to have continued in service and this
would be the basis for fixation of salary once he rejoined.
Resultantly, Surinder Singh's salary on rejoining would be computed
after including the incriments which he would have earned from the
date of removal till rejoining.
7. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23rd
April, 2015 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. OA No.2442/2013
will be treated as allowed in the aforesaid terms. There will be no
order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
MAY 16, 2016
NA
