Arvind Kumar Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 22 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Arvind Kumar Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 January, 2024

Author: Sujoy Paul

Bench: Sujoy Paul

                                                             1
                          IN    THE         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                               ON THE 2 nd OF JANUARY, 2024
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 85 of 2022

                         BETWEEN:-
                         ARVIND KUMAR SONI S/O LATE SHRI TULSIRAM SONI,
                         AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DAILY WAGER
                         LOWER     DIVISION    CLERK    IN   MUNICIPAL
                         CORPORATION KATNI R/O RAFI AHMAD KIDWAI
                         WARD ROSHAN NAGAR BEHIND TILAK COLLEGE
                         KATNI DISTT. KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH VERMA - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ITS
                               SECRETARY    DEPARTMENT    OF   URBAN
                               ADMINISTRATION     AND    DEVELOPMENT
                               MINISTRY   VALLABH    BHAWAN   BHOPAL
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    MUNICIPAL           CORPORATION THROUGH
                               COM M IS S ION ER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
                               DISTT.KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                         (SHRI YOGESH DHANDE - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE. )
                         (SHRI KUNAL THAKRE - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )

                               This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                              ORDER

1. With consent, heard finally.

2. Petitioner, who was appointed as daily rated employee in the year 1996 was terminated w.e.f. 02.08.1999. Admittedly, said termination order could not sustain judicial scrutiny and the Labour Court by award dated

29.07.2013 (Annexure P/11) set aside the termination and directed reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged by the employer which came to be dismissed on 15.07.2015 (Annexure P/2). In obedience thereof, the petitioner was reinstated by order dated 16.12.2020. In furtherance thereof, the petitioner joined on 17.12.2020.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner is 'reinstated', it is immaterial whether the petitioner has worked or not between 02.08.1999 (the date of termination) till 17.12.2020 (date of reinstatement).

4. Shri Kunal Thakre, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has taken a diametrically opposite stand that petitioner was not in employment

between 02.08.1999 till his reinstatement on 17.12.2020. Thus, his services cannot be treated to be continued and therefore, he is not entitled for regularisation.

5. Parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated hereinabove.

6. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

7. In Service/Industrial Jurisprudence, the word 'reinstatement' has a definite meaning. The Apex Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under :-

"21. The word "reinstatement" has not been defined in the Act and the Rules. As per Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. 2, 3rd Edn., the word "reinstate" means to reinstall or re- establish (a person or thing in a place, station, condition, etc.); to restore to its proper or original state; to reinstate afresh and the word "reinstatement" means the action of reinstating; re-establishment. As per Law Lexicon, 2nd Edn., the word "reinstate" means to reinstall; to re-establish; to place again in a former state, condition or office; to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been

removed and the word "reinstatement" means establishing in former condition, position or authority (as) reinstatement of a deposed prince. As per Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word "reinstate" means to place again (as in possession or in a former position), to restore to a previous effective state. As per Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn., "reinstatement" means:

"To reinstall, to re-establish, to place again in a former state, condition, or office; to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed."

22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer."

8. A plain reading of this judgment shows that upon reinstatement, the petitioner's position is restored back from the date he was terminated from service. Thus, apart from back wages, the petitioner was entitled to get the benefit of the years for the intervening period for the purpose of counting those years for consideration of regularisation. Thus, this Court is unable to countenance the action of respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was not in employment between 1999 till his reinstatement.

9. The petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation in accordance with law and take a decision within 90 days from the date of production of copy of this order.

10. Petition is disposed of.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE PK