Summary
The Supreme Court held that a final direction to reinstate a museum Gallery Attendant could not be implemented as a fresh appointment. The employee was entitled to continuity from his sanctioned full-time appointment in July 2002 and consequential benefits, subject to the earlier judgment’s express denial of wages for the period he had not worked. Later recruitment rules and the regularisation resolution could not retrospectively displace that appointment on these facts.
Issues
- Whether authorities could treat reinstatement under a final judgment as a fresh appointment without continuity.
- What consequential monetary benefits followed, given the prior exclusion of back wages.
Held
- The unappealed 2013 judgment directing reinstatement had attained finality and bound the authorities. Issuing a fresh appointment from October 2013 could not defeat its effect. (¶¶ 22, 23, 28)
- The employee’s full-time appointment in 2002 had the competent Director’s sanction. The later 2005 recruitment rules and the 2007 regularisation resolution adopted following Umadevi could not retrospectively govern that appointment in the circumstances considered. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32)
- Continuity ran from the July 2002 full-time appointment. Differential salary between full-time and part-time employment was payable, if any, from 25 July 2002, excluding 18 December 2012 to 22 August 2013 in accordance with the final earlier judgment denying wages for that nonworking period. (¶¶ 28, 33, 34)
Result
Appeal allowed; the impugned Division Bench judgment set aside and Single Bench judgment restored with modification. Reinstatement with continuity and consequential benefits directed, excluding wage arrears for 18 December 2012 to 22 August 2013.