Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prabal Jyoti vs The Maharshi Dayanand University & Anr on 2 May, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060754-DB
LPA-250-2017 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:060754-DB
Page 1 of 3
211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA-250-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.05.2024
PRABAL JYOTI
. . . . Appellant
Vs.
THE MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY & ANR.
. . . . Respondents
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
****
Present: Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate for
Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
1. The short question involved in the present appeal is only to the extent
that whether the Court vide order dated 21.10.2016 in CWP-11752-
1998 could have reinstated the appellant (petitioner therein) instead of
paying compensation to her.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a Ph.D.
and is also engaged as a research fellow in several universities. She is
also managing a college of her own and is very much interested in
imparting education, and therefore there was no occasion not to allow
her to be reinstated by the Single Judge, once it had held that the
appellant was wrongfully terminated.
3. We have considered the submissions.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060754-DB
LPA-250-2017 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:060754-DB
4. The Single Judge vide order dated 21.10.2016 has made the following
observations:
"8. The question remaining is whether the petitioner is
entitled to no relief whatsoever from this Court in the present
proceedings? I do not think so. If she goes empty handed she
may think the Court failed her by the fiat accompli of passing
time. The petitioner will, in my opinion, be eminently entitled to
relief of damages for the wrongful act of the respondent-
University in passing prima facie an illegal order on the given
materials on record. The respondent University can be
compelled by mandamus to compensate her in terms of money
for the terrible wrong committed by it in such a casual manner
and for the wrong reason with the Vice Chancellor retracting
from the order, that he never meant it. But unfortunately his
command was grossly misinterpreted by the Regestrar who
promptly dished out the order terminating her services as a
Lecturer. This must obviously have completely destroyed her
career and, therefore, this Court in order to enforce amends,
directs the respondent-University ex debito justatiae to pay a
compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs to the petitioner in lieu of
reinstatement. The amount must be paid to her within six weeks
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing
which it will earn interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the
payment is made."
5. It is the stand of the respondents/University that the appellant was
appointed against a lien vacancy, and thus it cannot be said that there is
a permanent post available for reinstatement in the University.
6. In view thereof, while the reasons assigned by the Single Judge may
not be in conformity with our reasons, a reinstatement after holding a
person's termination to be bad is not a right available to any individual.
The reinstatement is subject to availability of a post. There are cases
where the concerned institute may not be functioning by the time the
Court passes a judgment. In such circumstances, compensation can
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060754-DB
LPA-250-2017 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:060754-DB
always be awarded in lieu of reinstatement. In matters relating to
Industrial Disputes Act, the labour Court award is passed granting
compensation in lieu of reinstatement and the Supreme Court has
upheld such orders in Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja vs. Kutchh District
Panchayat, 2022 SCC Online SC 1284.
7. In view of above, we are inclined to uphold the order dated 21.10.2016
passed by the Single Judge, more so as there is no post on which we
can direct the appellant to be reinstated, as she was working against a
lien vacancy post which gets immediately filled after a regularly
appointed Professor/Assistant Professor rejoins.
8. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed accordingly. The order
dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Single Judge is therefore upheld.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
May 02, 2024
Mohit goyal
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
3 of 3
