Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. In the light of the discussion above, we are of the view that the direction of the High Court to reinstate / re- engage the first respondent, particularly after lapse of the term of his engagement, is not legally sustainable and, therefore, it deserves to be set aside.

22. The question which now arises is as to what relief the first respondent be provided at this stage. Admittedly, the direction of the High Court to reinstate/ re-engage was not implemented on account of stay on contempt proceedings, therefore equities have not been created in (2006) 3 SCC 330  favour of the first respondent by dint of length of his continuation in service. In such circumstances, the first respondent can be compensated with monetary compensation. In ordinary circumstances, the relief of compensation as was awarded by the Tribunal would have been sufficient. But here the State is held to have treated similarly situated persons differently which has resulted in unwarranted expectation and prolonged litigation. No doubt, an attempt is there on part of the State to distinguish the case of the first respondent with those in whose favour Tribunal’s order was there, but details of those distinguishing features have not been brought to our notice during the course of hearing. Under these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to award a lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 lacs to the first respondent as full and final settlement of all claims against the appellant.