Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vandana Narula vs Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak ... on 23 July, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085312
CWP No.2301 of 2019 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.2301 of 2019 (O&M)
Reserved on: 10.07.2024
Pronounced on: 23.07.2024
Dr. Vandana Narula
....Petitioner
Versus
Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 5.
Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate
for Ms. Tuneet Walia, Advocate for respondent No.6.
Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.7.
NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has approached this Court through the instant writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for setting-aside the resolution dated 28.07.2017 and office order dated 31.08.2017 (Annexure P-14), whereby her request for grant of one year leave was disapproved and her services as Deputy Director (Education) were dispensed with on account of abolition of the post of Deputy Director (Education) based upon purported reconstitution of Directorate of Education. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing respondents No.1 to 3 to 1 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 11:00:16 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085312 CWP No.2301 of 2019 (O&M) 2 give details of all posts available in the Directorate of Education, Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee (hereinafter referred as 'SGPC') and to restore the appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Director (Education), SGPC or on the equivalent post, along with all consequential benefits or in the alternative to continue the service of the petitioner on the lower post i.e. Assistant Director, along with independent charge of schools, with all consequential benefits including seniority, arrears of salary with interest @ 12% per annum. Further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to grant all the terminal and other consequential benefits.
2. The brief facts, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Director (Schools) on contractual basis in the Directorate of Education, SGPC on 05.04.2010 and she joined as such on 06.04.2010. The contractual appointment of the petitioner was further extended for six months vide communication dated 04.10.2010 and thereafter, further extension was granted to her w.e.f. 06.04.2011. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were regularized and regular appointment letter dated 18.10.2011 was issued to her and in pursuance thereto, the petitioner submitted her joining report on 19.10.2011. She was confirmed vide resolution of the Education Committee of SGPC dated 01.05.2013 with effect from the same date. The petitioner was, thereafter, granted independent charge of schools run by SGPC with instructions to report directly to the Chief Secretary, SGPC, vide communication dated 02.12.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner was further promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Schools) 2 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 11:00:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085312 CWP No.2301 of 2019 (O&M) 3 in the Directorate of Education vide order No.77 dated 22.12.2016. In order to look after her ailing parents, she applied for one year leave from the then President, SGPC. No communication for sanction of her leave was addressed to her.
Thereafter, vide order dated 31.08.2017, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with on account of abolition of the post of Deputy Director (Education) based upon purported reconstitution of Directorate of Education. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.12.2017, followed by a legal notice dated 22.09.2018, against termination of her services and since no action was taken by the respondents, therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
3. The claim set up by the petitioner has been contested by respondents No.1 to 5 by filing a detailed written statement wherein it has been stated as under:-
"1 to 8. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
9. XXXX. As per the resolution, the post of the Director and Assistant Directors were duly advertised and a duly constituted selection committee appointed Dr. J.S. Sidhu as Director and Prabhjit Singh and Satwant Kaur as Assistant Directors on regular basis. The resolution no. 862, dated 28.07.2017 keeping in consideration the nature of work undertaken by Directorate Office consciously decided that there is no need of appointing Deputy Director and Executive Committee abolished the Post of Deputy Director. XXXX. It is worth mentioning here that Satwant Kaur who was already working as Assistant Director applied for the post but the petitioner never bothered to 3 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 11:00:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085312 CWP No.2301 of 2019 (O&M) 4 apply which was required because of the restructuring of Directorate Office. XXXX.
10 & 11. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
12. That the contents of Para No. 12 of the writ petition are admitted as the Executive Committee through its resolution no. 913, dated 18.08.2017 and Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee passed an order no.3027, dated 31.08.2017 dispensing off services of the petitioner and the same was sent through registered post by Directorate Office letter no.DE/SGPC/2017-18/1837, dated 29.09.2017 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of leave because of the abolishment of the post of Deputy Director. It is submitted here that the Executive Committee is the final decision making authority of the Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee. The three months salary was not released as the petitioner has failed to obtain no due certificate from the concerned authority, as soon as the petitioner completes the said formality, the three months salary shall be released.
13. That the content of para no.13 of the writ petition are wrong and denied. The work and conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory as Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee through its resolution no.5961, dated 24.02.2017 issued warning to her for misusing the authority and going beyond her rights. A copy of the resolution dated 24.02.2017 is being attached as Annexure R-2."
4. The case was heard by this Court on 01.05.2024 and prima facie it was found that the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Deputy Director (Education) without adjusting her to the post of Assistant Director (Schools) is 4 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 11:00:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085312 CWP No.2301 of 2019 (O&M) 5 illegal and Sh. Lakvir Singh, Assistant Secretary, SGPC, who was present in the Court, sought two weeks time to get instructions as to whether the petitioner can be adjusted as Assistant Director (Schools) with continuity of service and the case was adjourned for 22.05.2024.
5. Vide order dated 21.05.2024, the petitioner has been reinstated back on the post of Assistant Director (Schools) in the Directorate of Education and it was further ordered that period from 03.08.2017 till 23.05.2024 shall be considered as 'leave without pay but without any service break' and the petitioner was directed to attend the office on 23.05.2024. The said order reads as under:-
"DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE Panth Ratan Jathedar Gurcharan Singh Tohra Institute of Advanced Studies in Sikhism, Bahadurgarh, Distt. Patiala-147021 Ref. No.DE/SGPC/2023-24/C/1213-15 Dated: 21/05/2024 Dr. Vandana Narula, House No: 23, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh.
Subject:- Reinstatement in Service.
With reference to the CWP No. 2301/2019 titled as Vandana Narula Vs SGPC filed by you regarding your service in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and in light of the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, The Hon'ble President of Shiromani Gurudwara Parbanbhak Committee has reconsidered the matter as per the order of Hon'ble High 5 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 11:00:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085312 CWP No.2301 of 2019 (O&M) 6 Court, Accordingly, you have been reinstated back on the post of Assistant Director in the Directorate of Education. The period from 03.08.2017 till 23.05.2024 shall be considered as, on leave without pay but without any service break.
So you are required to attend the office of Directorate of Education, Shiromani Gurdwara Parbanbhak Committee, Bahadurgarh, Patiala on 23-05- 2024 at 10:00 and assume the charge of the office. The terms and conditions of your service will remain as per your appointment letter.
(Secretary Education Director Education) Copy to:
1. Office, Secretary Education, S.G.P.C, Sri Amritsar.
2. Additional Secretary, Sub office, S.G.P.C. Chandigarh.
Sd/- (Secretary Education/Director Education"
It has been informed that the petitioner has joined the services as Assistant Director in pursuance to the letter reproduced above.
6. Now the only relief which is sought to be claimed in the present petition is with regard to the grant of monetary benefits for the period from 03.08.2017 to 23.05.2024 when the petitioner remained out of service.
7. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that services of the petitioner have wrongly been dispensed with by the respondents - SGPC, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and to be set aside and, therefore, she is entitled for salary, pay fixation, arrears along with consequential benefits for the period from 03.08.2017 to 6 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 11:00:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085312 CWP No.2301 of 2019 (O&M) 7 23.05.2024. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others", 2013(4) SCT 716, wherein it has been held that in case of wrongful termination, the employee is entitled for backwages on his reinstatement. The relevant extract from the said judgment, reads as follow:-
"33. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:
i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule."
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
v) The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior Courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation to pay the same.
The Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages.
7 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 11:00:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085312 CWP No.2301 of 2019 (O&M) 8
vi) In a number of cases, the superior Courts have interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalization of litigation has taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases the parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for delay in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the termination of his service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The Courts should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer, i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (supra)."
8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Pradeep S/o Rajkumar Jain vs Manganese Ore (India) Limited and others", 2022(1) SCT 293. The operative part of the said judgment reads as follow:-
"xxxxx. It is, undoubtedly, true when the question arises as to whether the backwages is to be given and as to what is to be the extent of backwages, these are matters which will depend on the facts of the case as noted in Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra). In a case where it is 8 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 11:00:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085312 CWP No.2301 of 2019 (O&M) 9 found that the employee was not at all at fault and yet, he was visited with illegal termination or termination which is actually activised by malice, it may be unfair to deny him the fruits of the employment which he would have enjoyed but for the illegal/malafide termination. The effort of the Court must be to then to restore the status quo in the manner which is appropriate in the facts of each case. The nature of the charges, the exact reason for the termination as evaluated and, of course, the question as to whether the employee was gainfully employed would be matters which will enter into the consideration by the Court."
9. Similarly, reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited vs. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited and others", 1979(2) SCC 80. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus:-
"9. It is no more open to debate that in the field of industrial jurisprudence a declaration can be given that the termination of service is bad and the workmen continues to be in service. The spectre of common law doctrine that contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced or the doctrine of mitigation of damages does not haunt in this branch of law. The relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the employer is found to be in the wrong as a result of which the workman is directed to be reinstated, the employer could not shirk his responsibility 9 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 11:00:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085312 CWP No.2301 of 2019 (O&M) 10 of paying the wages which the workman has been deprived of by the illegal or invalid action of the employer. Speaking reaslistically, where termination of service is questioned as invalid or illegal and the workman has to go through the gamut of litigation, his capacity to sustain himself throughout the protracted litigation is itself such an awesome factor that he may not survive to see the day when relief is granted. More so in our system where the law's proverbial delay has become stupefying. If after such a protracted time and energy consuming litigation during which period the workman just sustains himself, ultimately he is to be told that though he will be reinstated, he will be denied the back wages which would be due to him, the workman would be subjected to a sort of penalty for no fault of his and it is wholly undeserved. Ordinarily, therefore, a workman whose service has been illegally terminated would be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. That is the normal rule. Any other view would be a premium on the unwarranted litigative activity of the employer. If the employer terminates the service illegally and the termination is motivated as in this case, viz., to resist the workmen's demand for revision of wages, the termination may well amount to unfair labour practice. In such circumstances reinstatement being the normal rule, it should be followed with full back wages. Articles 41 and 43 of the Constitution would assist us in reaching a just conclusion in this respect. By a suitable legislation, to wit, the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the State has endeavoured to secure work to the workmen. In breach of the statutory obligation the services were terminated and the termination is found to the invalid; the workmen though willing to do the assigned work and earn their livelihood, 10 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 11:00:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085312 CWP No.2301 of 2019 (O&M) 11 were kept away, therefrom. On top of it they were forced to litigation up to the apex Court and now they are being told that something less than full back wages should be awarded to them. If the services were not terminated the workmen ordinarily would have continued to work and would have earned their wages. When it was held that the termination of services was neither proper nor justified, it would not only show that the workmen were always willing to serve but if they rendered service they would legitimately be entitled to the wages for the same. If the workmen were always ready to work but they were kept away therefrom on account of invalid act of the employer, there is no justification for not awarding them full back wages which were very legitimately due to them. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Dhari Gram Panchayat v. Safai Kamdar Mandal, (1971) 1 Lab LJ 508 and a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Postal Seals Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Labour Court, Lucknow, (1971) 1 Lab LJ 327 have taken this view and we are of the opinion that the view taken therein is correct.
10. The view taken by us gets support from the decision of this Court in Workmen of Calcutta Dock Labour Board v. Employers in relation to Calcutta Dock Labour Board, (1974) 3 SCC 216. In this case seven workmen had been detained under the Defence of India Rules and one of the disputes was that when they were released and reported for duty, they were not taken in service and the demand was for their reinstatement. The Tribunal directed reinstatement of five out of seven workmen and this part of the Award was challenged before this Court. This court held that the workmen concerned did not have any opportunity of explaining why their service should not be terminated and, therefore, reinstatement was 11 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 11:00:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085312 CWP No.2301 of 2019 (O&M) 12 held to be the appropriate, relief, and set aside the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that there was no justification for not awarding full back wages from the day they offered to resume work till their reinstatement. Almost an identical view was taken in Management of Panitole Tea Estate v. The Workmen, (1971) 3 SCR 774.
11. In the very nature of things there cannot be a strait-jacket formula for awarding relief of back wages. All relevant considerations will enter the verdict. More or less, it would be a motion addressed to the discretion of the Tribunal. Full back wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. At that stage the Tribunal will exercise its discretion keeping in view all the relevant circumstances. But the discretion must be exercised in a judicial and judicious manner. The reason for exercising discretion must be cogent and convincing and must appear on the face of the record. When it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authority, that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, according to law and not humour. It is not to be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular (See Susannah Sharp v. Wakefield, 1891 AC 173 at p. 179)."
10. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in "Kuldeep Singh vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Panipat and others", 2017(4) PLR 216. The operative part of the said judgment reads as under:-
"12. Ordinarily, an illegal termination is visited with reinstatement and back wages. See Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd., (1979) 2 SCC 80, Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State 12 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 11:00:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085312 CWP No.2301 of 2019 (O&M) 13 Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192, Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana), 2010 (3) SLR 663, Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur, (2011) 6 SCC 584 and Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others, (2013) 10 SCC 324, Jasmer Singh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 4 SCC 458 and Tapash Kumar Paul v. BSNL and another, 2014 (3) SCT 106 (SC) and the full bench judgment of this court handed down in Hari Palace v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, 1979 (2) ILR (Punjab) 243 holding that back wages will follow illegal termination unless there are reasons necessitating departure."
11. To the same effect is the judgment of this Court in "K.L. Arora vs The Board of Directors of the Punjab Agro Industries Corporation and others", 1986(2) SLR 714.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 submits that the petitioner is not entitled for the salary and other benefits for the intervening period i.e. 03.08.2017 to 23.05.2024 as she has not worked during the said period. He has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and another vs Madanlal Tandon", 2015(8) SCC 461, "Union Territory Chandigarh vs Brijmohan Kaur", 2007(11) SCC 488 as well as the judgment passed by this Court in "Central Institute For Research on Buffaloes, Hisar vs Ishwar Singh and another", 2014(2) SCT 506.
13 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 11:00:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085312 CWP No.2301 of 2019 (O&M) 14
13. I have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record of the case.
14. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner joined the services of SGPC as Assistant Director (Schools) on adhoc/contract basis on 06.04.2010 and thereafter, her services were regularized and she was appointed on regular basis vide order dated 18.10.2011 and was confirmed on 01.05.2013. She was further promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Education) vide order dated 22.12.2016. Even if the post of Deputy Director (Education) has been sought to be abolished, based upon purported reconstitution of Directorate of Education, the respondents were duty bound to adjust the petitioner to the post of Assistant Director (Schools) and realizing their mistake, they have reinstated the petitioner in service on the post of Assistant Director (Schools) vide order dated 21.05.2024.
15. Once the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner on account of abolition of post of Deputy Director is contrary to law and the petitioner was thrown out of her services in a totally illegal and arbitrary manner, therefore, she cannot be denied the salary for the intervening period when she remained out of service i.e. 03.08.2017 to 23.05.2024. The principle of 'No Work No Pay', would not be applicable in the present case as the petitioner was always willing to work on the post of Assistant Director, however, it is the respondent - SGPC, who did not allow the petitioner to work on the said post as her services were wrongly terminated.
14 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 11:00:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085312 CWP No.2301 of 2019 (O&M) 15
16. The law on the issue of terminating the services of an employee on account of abolition of post and not adjusting him/her on the feeder post from which he/she was promoted, is not res integra.
17. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Anil Kumar Soni vs The Managing Director, Punjab Financial Corporation", 1991(2) SCT 558 and the operative part of the said judgment, reads as follow:-
"We see no force in the above contention. It is an admitted position that the appellant was a permanent employee of the Corporation' having been confirmed as Assistant Technical Officer on 14.7. 1976. The Corporation advertised the posts of Assistant Manager to be filled up by direct recruitment and the employees of the Corporation were also allowed to compete with the candidates from the market. The appellant was no doubt selected and appointed as Assistant Manager on probation on 26.5.1980 but his services were terminated on 11.5.1984 during the period of probation and before the confirmation of the appellant on the said post. The object of the resolution of the Board extracted above was that if an employee of the Corporation was inducted in the new cadre post then the post already held by him shall be abolished from the date of such appointment in the new cadre. The entire purpose of such resolution was that if an employee of the Corporation was appointed in the new cadre post to be filled up by direct recruitment then the Corporation did not want to continue the earlier post held by such employee of the Corporation. Thus in the scheme of things such appointment of the employee of the Corporation to the new cadre posts ought to have been confirmed appointment. It would be against all canons of justice that confirmed employee of the Corporation though allowed to compete for a new cadre post by direct recruitment but having not been confirmed on such post is not allowed to claim his right even on the lower post on which he had permanent lien to continue. It would be a travesty of justice to throw the person on the streets after a period of service of nine years in the 15 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 11:00:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085312 CWP No.2301 of 2019 (O&M) 16 Corporation. The post of Assistant Technical Officer held by the appellant as a confirmed employee could have only been abolished in case he was confirmed on the post of Assistant Manager. The contention of the learned counsel for the Corporation that mere selection on the new cadre post of Assistant' Manager was sufficient for abolishing the post of Assistant Technical Officer cannot be accepted. The appointment in the new cadre post as mentioned in the resolution of the Board means confirmed appointment on such post."
18. The judgments relied up by the learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 5, as mentioned above, are not applicable and clearly distinguishable to the facts of the present case. In Bilaspur Raipur Kshteriya Gramin Bank and another (supra), there was an issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as to whether the documents, which were the basis of the charges levelled against the respondent, were supplied to the respondent or not after issuance of charge sheets for having committed misconduct and several financial irregularities in various loan cases. Learned Single Bench quashed the order of removal passed by the appellant on the ground of non supply of list of documents and list of witnesses to respondent along with charge sheet and as such the respondent was not afforded an opportunity to put forward his case in response to show cause notice along with the charge sheet and allowed the writ petition of the respondent with all consequential benefits. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision, the appellant preferred an appeal and the Division Bench of that High Court affirmed the order of Single Bench of setting aside the removal of the respondent and has awarded a lumpsum payment of Rs. 5 Lac towards the salary with all consequential benefits to him on the 16 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 11:00:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085312 CWP No.2301 of 2019 (O&M) 17 basis of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon'ble Supreme court upheld the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench of that High Court. This judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. Equally distinguishable are the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Territory Chandigarh's case (surpa) and the Division Bench of this Court in Central Institute for research on Buffaloes, Hisar' s case (supra).
19. In view of the foregoing reasons, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant the salary, pay fixation, arrears to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Director (Schools) from 03.08.2017 to 23.05.2024, with all consequential benefits and the same shall be calculated and released to the petitioner within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
JUDGE
23.07.2024
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
17 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 11:00:17 :::