Kosha Bai vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Others

The singular question involved in this case is whether the services rendered by the petitioner between 31-12-2002 to 18-02-2006 can be taken

into account for the purpose of counting qualifying service.

The admitted facts between the parties are that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1963. By order dated 31-10-1998, the petitioner was

regularized. The respondents by order dated 31-12-2002 terminated the services of the petitioner which was assailed by her by raising an

industrial disputed, which was decided by Labour Court in Case No.128/03 I.D. Reference on 18-02-2006. WP. Filed by the State against the

award was dismissed. The respondents were directed to be reinstated the petitioner by Labour Court by order dated 18-02-2006. The petitioner

retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-06-2007.

Shri Rahul Mishra, learned Government Advocate by placing reliance on the return submits that the petitioner has not completed ten years of

qualifying service. The petitioner was reinstated in February 2006. The petitioner has not performed any work with the department from 31-12-

2002 to 18-02-2006. Since she attained the age of 62 years and retired on 30-06-2007, the petitioner has not acquired the status of permanent

employee as per Sub-rule 3 of Rule 6 of M.P. Work Charged & Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979 (Rules of 1979).

The stand of the petitioner is that once he is reinstated, the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service for all purposes including for the purpose

of qualifying service. The said period during which she remained out of employment because of an illegal dismissal order, the services cannot be

treated as interrupted because the ultimate direction of the Court is to ''reinstate'' the petitioner.

Shri Rahul Mishra, learned Government Advocate supported the government stand on the strength of the return.

No other point is pressed by the parties.

The word ""reinstatement"" has a definite connotation in service/labour jurisprudence. The Apex Court in the case of (2013) 10 SCC 324

(Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya & Others) considered this aspect and opined as under:-

The word ""reinstatement"" has not been defined in the Act and the Rules. As per Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. 2, 3rd Edn., the

word ""reinstate"" means to reinstall or re-establish (a person or thing in a place, station, condition, etc.); to restore to its proper or original state; to

reinstate afresh and the word ""reinstatement"" means the action of reinstating; re-establishment. As per Law Lexicon, 2nd Edn., the word ""reinstate

means to reinstall; to re-establish; to place again in a former state, condition or office; to restore to a state or position from which the object or

person had been removed and the word ""reinstatement"" means establishing in former condition, position or authority (as) reinstatement of a

deposed prince. As per Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word ""reinstate"" means to place again (as in possession or in a former position), to

restore to a previous effective state. As per Black''s Law Dictionary, 6th Edn., ""reinstatement"" means:

To reinstall, to re-establish, to place again in a former state, condition, or office; to restore to a state or position from which the object or person

had been removed.

(Emphasis supplied)

In the light of aforesaid, it is clear that once a direction of reinstatement is passed, the employer has to put the clock back on the date when the

services of the employee was terminated. From that dates, she shall be treated to be in employment. The word ""reinstatement"" and

reappointment"" have different legal connotation. The Labour Court''s award shows that the petitioner was reinstated with full backwages. Thus,

for all purposes, she must be treated to be in employment and action of respondents in treating her service as interrupted cannot be upheld.

Resultantly, it is declared that the respondents have erroneously treated the services of the petitioner as interrupted. In view of order of Labour

Court dated 18-02-2006, the petitioner shall be treated to be in employment with all consequential benefits. The respondents shall work out

benefits and extend the same to the petitioner within 90 days, failing which it will carry 12% interest till the date of realization.

Before parting with the matter, I am constrained to observe that this is an avoidable piece of litigation. The meaning of ''reinstatement'' is well

settled since long and respondents have unnecessarily compelled the petitioner to knock the doors of this Court. Accordingly, I deem it proper to

grant Rs.10,000/- as cost which shall be paid to the petitioner within aforesaid time.

The petition is allowed.