Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed retrenched education employees’ claim for salary between termination and their later fresh appointments. They had neither challenged the termination following closure of the scheme nor the policy and appointment terms treating their engagement as fresh employment, with past service counted only for pension. Their delayed writ petition could not obtain back wages by relying on cases where termination had been challenged and reinstatement ordered.
Issues
- Whether employees accepting fresh appointments could claim salary for the intervening period without challenging their earlier termination or the appointment terms.
- Whether relief obtained by other employees required the same result despite materially different challenges.
Provisions considered
- Fresh-appointment and past-service conditions, Bihar Government resolution dated 20 May 2005 and appointment letter dated 16 March 2007The accepted and unchallenged terms treated adjustment as a fresh appointment and preserved prior service only for pension, rather than seniority or intervening salary. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 21)
Held
- The employees accepted the fresh-appointment terms without protest and did not challenge the termination, the adjustment policy or those terms. Their 2013 writ petition also suffered from laches. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
- On these facts, back wages could not be awarded independently of reinstatement for a period when the employees were outside employment after abolition of the scheme and had not worked. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- Cases in which employees successfully challenged termination and obtained consequential reinstatement and back wages were distinguishable. A benefit inconsistent with the governing policy could not be replicated merely because relief elsewhere survived dismissal of a special leave petition. (¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 21)
- The State’s appeal was allowed, the impugned High Court judgment set aside and the employees’ writ petition dismissed, without costs. (¶ 22)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22208 of 2013 dismissed. No order as to costs.