[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Jai Bhan vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 16 March, 2026
$~72
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 16th March, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 6848/2017
JAI BHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Mittal, Mr. Shaurya
Mittal, & Ms. Dhanya
Visweswaran, Advs.
versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. On 24.02.2026, the following order was passed :
" 1. The Petitioner was appointed as a Conductor with Delhi
Transport Corporation ('DTC') on regular basis in the year
1982. However, he was removed from service on 07.10.1994,
which forced him to seek redressal before the learned Labour
Court.
2. By award dated 01.02.2010, the Petitioner was ordered to
be reinstated with continuity of service, however, without any
back wages.
3. The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition, which was dismissed,
however, the LPA Bench remitted the matter back to the learned
Labour Court for fresh decision on the question of back wages.
Subsequently, the learned Labour Court awarded 50% of back
wages.
4. The Petitioner was reinstated in service on 11.08.2010.
5. Against the order passed by the learned Labour Court
granting 50% back wages, a Writ Petition was filed by the DTC
in which the issue of back wages was finally decided and it was
held that the Petitioner is entitled to back wages of ₹4,00,000/-.
6. In the year 2012, the Petitioner had filed an Original
Application bearing no. 3617/2012 praying for fixation of basic
pay after giving benefit of notional increments, by assuming that
he remained in continuous service from 1994 till 2010 without
any break in his service. The said original application has been
dismissed by the learned Tribunal by the impugned order dated
27.02.2017 by noting that the award of learned Labour Court did
not order continuity in service and grant of notional benefits.
7. The Petitioner, after having worked from 2010 till 2017,
has demitted office on attaining the age of superannuation.
8. In these circumstances, the following questions arise :
i) How and in what manner the salary of the Petitioner was
fixed on his reinstatement in the year 2010?
ii) Whether he was given benefit of annual increments while
fixing his salary in accordance with his counterparts?
iii) Whether the Petitioner will be entitled to benefit of
ACP/MACP?
9. Learned counsel representing the Respondent is
requested to file an affidavit in this regard.
10. List on 09.03.2026 in the 'Supplementary List'."
2. In compliance with the aforesaid direction, an Affidavit has
been filed by the Respondent.
3. Once again, this Court has heard learned counsel representing
the parties.
4. As already noticed, the only issue is entitlement of the
Petitioner to re-fixation of salary upon reinstatement pursuant to the
order passed by the learned Labour Court, wherein it was directed that
the Petitioner would be reinstated in service with continuity of service.
5. It is the stand of the Respondent that there is no direction by the
learned Labour Court to refix the salary of the Petitioner upon
reinstatement. It is claimed that reinstatement with continuity of
service does not entail refixation of salary after notionally calculating
annual increments.
6. Learned counsel representing the Respondent relies upon the
following Judgments :
i. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P. Agrawal & Anr. : 2007 (2)
SCC 433.
ii. Rajasthan State Road Transport vs. Shyam Bihari Lal
Gupta : 2005 (7) SCC.
7. This Court has considered the submissions.
8. It is evident that the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra) was different to the present case, since, in
the said case, the Court found that the punishment of dismissal of the
employee was substituted by some lesser punishment and the
observations were made only in the aforesaid context to hold that
employee was not entitled for certain consequential benefits.
9. However, in the present case, the termination of Petitioner's
services was found to be illegal by the learned Labour Court and he
was specifically ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of
service.
10. Similarly, the Judgment passed in Rajasthan State Road
Transport (supra) is also distinguishable because the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the said case, had made certain observations while deciding
an Execution Petition filed by an employee after a suit filed by him
had been decreed. The issue involved in the aforesaid case was
entirely different to the present issue.
11. In fact, attention of the Court has been drawn to a Division
Bench Judgment of this Court in Mahabir Prasad vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation : 2014 (144) DRJ 422, wherein the effect of
reinstatement of employee with continuity of service was examined in
the context of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya
and Ors : (2013) 10 SCC 324 and it was held that direction to grant
continuity means that the employee had to be given notional
increments for the duration he remained out of service. Judgment of
the Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra) was also taken note
of by the High Court.
12. The relevant extracts of the Judgment passed in Mahabir Prasad
(supra) is reproduced as under:
"21. Consequently, it is held that the direction to grant continuity
meant that the petitioner had to be given notional increments for
the duration he was out of employment, in the grade and the
equivalent grade which replaced it later, till he reached the end
of the pay scale. Since there is no direction to give consequential
benefits, the petitioner cannot claim promotion as a matter of
right; it would have to be in accordance with the rules. ACP
benefits however, should be given. The notional pay fixation
would also mean that he would be entitled to reckon the period
between his removal and reinstatement as having been in
employment for pension, gratuity, and contributions to provident
fund etc. This Court directs the DTC to issue an order extending
these benefits to the petitioner for the 15 year period between his
dismissal in 1995 and his eventual reinstatement in 2011, within
eight weeks from today. The writ petition is allowed in these
terms; there shall be no order as to costs."
13. Keeping in view aforesaid position, the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal ('CAT') erred in overlooking the fact that the
Petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and
the Judgment passed by the learned CAT is a result of misreading of
order passed by the learned Labour Court.
14. The Respondents are directed to fix the pay of the Petitioner
after giving him notional increments for the duration he was out of
employment.
15. If in the meantime, the Grades have been revised, the Petitioner
shall be placed in equivalent Grade.
16. This exercise should be completed within a period of two
months from today.
17. Needless to observe that the Respondents will pay
consequential retiral benefits flowing from refixation of pay.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
MARCH 16, 2026
"SK"
