Summary
On a miscellaneous application by a probationer judicial officer whose termination the Court had set aside in 2022 while asking the Full Court to reconsider, the Supreme Court held that setting aside a termination order deems the employee to be in service, so he should have been taken back before the fresh decision. It awarded full salary from its 2022 judgment until the fresh termination order of 02.04.2024 and 50% back wages for the earlier period, leaving the fresh Full Court resolution and termination order to be challenged before the High Court.
Issues
- Whether, after the Supreme Court set aside the termination order and requested the Full Court to reconsider, the High Court and State were bound to take the appellant back into service pending reconsideration.
- What back wages the appellant was entitled to for the period after the original termination and until the fresh termination order.
Provisions considered
- Rule 7, Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994Noted as prescribing a three-year probation period, during which the appellant's services were dispensed with in 2009; the High Court's argument that reinstatement would make him a regular employee was recorded but the merits of the fresh termination were not examined. (¶¶ 2.1, 15, 19)
- Article 32, Constitution of IndiaThe appellant's earlier writ petition under Article 32 against the fresh Full Court resolution had been withdrawn with liberty to move the High Court; the Court therefore declined to examine the merits of the fresh resolution and termination order. (¶¶ 2.13, 19)
Held
- The Court confined itself to the prayer for reinstatement and consequential benefits flowing from its judgment of 20.04.2022, and did not examine the merits of the Full Court's fresh resolution dated 03.08.2023 or the State's termination order dated 02.04.2024, or the precedents cited on termination of probationers and retrospective termination. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- Once a termination order and the judgment upholding it are set aside, the natural consequence is that the employee is deemed to be in service and must be taken back, and only then proceeded with as directed. The inaction of the High Court and the State in not reinstating the appellant after the 2022 judgment, and in not deciding on back wages, was unjustified. (¶ 21)
- The appellant was entitled to full salary, with all admissible benefits and treating him as in continuous service, from 20.04.2022 until the fresh termination order of 02.04.2024. (¶ 21)
- For the period from 18.12.2009 to 19.04.2022, the ends of justice required payment of 50 percent of back wages, calculated with all admissible benefits treating him as continuously in service. (¶ 22)
- The appellant is at liberty to challenge the Full Court resolution of 03.08.2023 and the termination order of 02.04.2024 by a writ petition before the High Court, to be decided on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations in this order. (¶ 23)
Result
Miscellaneous application disposed of: full salary from 20.04.2022 to 02.04.2024 and 50% back wages from 18.12.2009 to 19.04.2022, with benefits as if in continuous service; liberty to challenge the fresh resolution and termination order before the High Court.