Mano Lal Saroj vs Union Of India & Ors.

Shri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents are present and heard.

By means of this OA, the applicants have sought the following reliefs :

The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the Original Application, are that the applicant was appointed to the post of Helper (Group-D) in the North Central Railway and joined service on 21.12.2022. Subsequently, during verification of his antecedents, it came to the notice of the respondents that a criminal case was pending against him before the Court of the ACJM, Pratapgarh. The applicant was granted bail on 09.06.2023 and submitted a representation dated 20.06.2023 along with the relevant documents. However, his services were terminated vide order dated 16.01.2024. The applicant challenged the said action before this Tribunal, and as per the order dated 19.04.2024 passed by this Tribunal and the subsequent order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court the applicant was permitted to rejoin duty vide order dated 23.09.2024 passed by respondent No. 4. The applicant subsequently submitted a representation dated 31.12.2024 requesting payment of salary arrears for the period from 16.01.2024 to 02.10.2024. However, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 22.01.2025, which has been challenged in the present Original Application. The applicant has, therefore, prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 and for a direction to the respondents to pay the arrears of salary for the aforesaid period, along with consequential benefits and interest till the actual date of payment.

The respondents, in their counter reply, have submitted that they have committed no illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned order dated 20.01.2025. It is contended that, in compliance with the order passed by this Tribunal, the applicant was reinstated in service subject to the outcome of the criminal case, but no direction was issued for payment of consequential benefits or back wages. The respondents have further submitted that the applicant was aware of the pendency of the criminal case since 21.02.2021 but deliberately concealed this fact and furnished an incorrect answer in the attestation form dated 13.12.2022. It is also stated that the charge-sheet had already been submitted before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, cognizance was taken on 26.05.2022, and summons were issued. The respondents have argued that reinstatement does not automatically entitle an employee to full or partial back wages and that the claim must be examined in accordance with the applicable rules and relevant legal principles.

The applicant has filed a rejoinder affidavit, controverting the averments made in the counter affidavit and reiterating substantially the same facts and grounds as stated in the Original Application.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was appointed to the post of Helper (Group-D) in the North Central Railway and his services were terminated vide order dated 16.01.2024 on account of the pendency of a criminal case. He submitted that this Tribunal, vide order dated 19.04.2024, and the Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 27.08.2024, passed orders in favour of the applicant, pursuant to which he was permitted to rejoin duty on 23.09.2024. However, the respondents have illegally denied him the arrears of salary for the period from 16.01.2024 to 02.10.2024, despite his subsequent reinstatement in service. Learned counsel further contended that the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 is arbitrary and unsustainable in law, and therefore, prayed that the same be quashed and the respondents be directed to release the arrears of salary for the aforesaid period along with consequential benefits and interest. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following case laws:-

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have committed no illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned order dated 20.01.2025. He contended that the applicant was reinstated in service in compliance with the order passed by this Tribunal, subject to the outcome of the criminal case, and no direction was issued for payment of back wages or consequential benefits. It was further submitted that the applicant was aware of the pendency of the criminal case since 21.02.2021 but failed to disclose the same in the attestation form dated 13.12.2022, wherein he furnished an incorrect answer. Learned counsel further argued that the charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent criminal court, cognizance was taken on 26.05.2022, and summons were issued to the applicant. He submitted that reinstatement in service does not automatically entitle an employee to back wages, which depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the applicable rules. Accordingly, he prayed that the Original Application, being devoid of merit, be dismissed. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the respondents has placed his reliance on the following case laws:-

I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire records.

Before discussing the submissions raised across the BAR, it will be useful to quote the relevant para of the case laws relied upon by the parties. In constable uma shankaran (supra) case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

Similarly, in the case of Shoorvir Singh (supra) the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital has held as under:-

In the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. (supra) case the Hon’ble supreme court has held that reinstatement in service does not automatically entitle an employee to back wages. The grant of back wages is an independent issue and must be decided by the Court or Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the employee’s service record, and the principles of justice, equity and good conscience.

In the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways (supra) case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that back wages are not automatic consequences of reinstatement. The Court must consider the nature and duration of employment, length of service and the possibility of alternative employment before awarding back wages.

It is pertinent to reproduce the impugned order vide which applicant claim for arrears have been rejected. The same is as under:-

The applicant was appointed as Helper (Group-D) in the North Central Railway and joined service on 21.12.2022. His services were terminated on 16.01.2024 on account of the pendency of a criminal case, but subsequently, pursuant to the orders passed by this Tribunal on 19.04.2024 and the Hon'ble High Court on 27.08.2024, he was permitted to rejoin duty vide order dated 23.09.2024. The applicant's claim for arrears of salary was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 22.01.2025 solely on the ground that no specific direction for payment of back wages had been issued in the earlier proceedings. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the absence of such a specific direction cannot, by itself, be treated as a conclusive ground for rejecting the applicant’s independent claim for arrears of salary. The respondents were required to examine the claim on its own merits, keeping in view the circumstances of termination and reinstatement, instead of rejecting it mechanically. The applicant was restored to service pursuant to judicial orders, and the impugned order does not disclose any independent assessment of his entitlement to salary for the period in question. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Constable Uma Shankaran (supra), support consideration of the consequences of an unlawful deprivation of employment, while the decisions in U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mitthu Singh and General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh require the claim for back wages to be determined on the particular facts and circumstances of each case.

The claim shall not be rejected merely because the earlier judicial orders did not expressly grant back wages. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 is set aside and the Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the admissible arrears of salary for the period from 16.01.2024 to 02.10.2024, along with consequential benefits, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, no interest shall be payable on the arrears of salary.

No order as to costs. All associated MAs also stand disposed of.