Dear Members and Experts,
Copy of the Supreme Court Judgement is required. Kindly post the same.
"In a judgment that may have far reaching consequences, the Supreme Court has ruled that if an employee is compulsorily retired and later reinstated after finding the decision of his termination wrong, the employee will be entitled to back-wages for the period during the termination of his services."
Fired then hired employees entitled to salary of lay-off period, rules apex court
DECISION COMES ON A PETITION FILED BY EX-UNDER SECY, DHBVN, WHO HAD TO RETIRE FOLLOWING AN ACR CASTING ASPERSION ON HIS INTEGRITY
CHANDIGARH: In a judgment that may have far reaching consequences, the Supreme Court has ruled that if an employee is compulsorily retired and later reinstated after finding the decision of his termination wrong, the employee will be entitled to back-wages for the period during the termination of his services.
The decision came from a bench comprising justice Altamas Kabir and justice J Chelameswar on a petition filed by Ram Kishan, former under secretary (legal), Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam.
Kishan, who had joined services in 1974 as a clerk, had subsequently reached the post of under secretary and was compulsorily retired from service in November 2003, following an annual confidential report (ACR) casting aspersion on his integrity. The petitioner was to superannuate on February 28, 2006.
However, when Kishan approached the Punjab and Haryana high court, he was reinstated in February 2009 by the high court after a gap of six years from his termination with all the consequential benefits except back-wages for the period that he was not working.
In the meantime, his immediate junior officer, Poonam Bhasin, was allowed higher grade and promoted as officiating legal remembrancer/joint secretary (legal).
Not satisfied with the single judge order, he again moved before the division bench of the high court but the division bench did not find it necessary to interfere with the view taken by single judge.
Kishan then approached the Supreme Court and submitted that he was entitled for the wages for the period for which he had not worked. He justified that he had been prevented from performing his job, not because he did not wish to work, but because he had been retired from service on a ground, which had been found to be malafide and biased by the high court.
The apex court found that the adverse entries were made in Kishan’s ACR with malafide intent on account of his complaints against senior officers and the decision of his compulsory retirement was biased. The complaints (against superior officers) ultimately did not turn out to be frivolous, held the apex court.