AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—The appellant/the writ petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the termination order in Rc. No. 10319/P1/85 dated 04-08-2008 came up with a petition seeking quashment of the same and also as a natural corollary reinstatement in service as Mazdoor with monetary benefits and continuity of service.
The learned Single Judge, relying on a decision in S. Vaikundam Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu--> , quashed the termination order on the ground that the same was bad and directed the respondent to reinstate the appellant in service by granting 25% of the back wages and continuity of service.
The facts in nutshell are that the appellant joined as a Sweeper in the respondent''s office against leave vacancy sometime in the year 1984. After some time, he was temporarily appointed as Mazdoor at the Institute of Public Health, Poonamallee under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services. As projected by the appellant, he made a representation on 29-10-1985 for regularization of service. To his surprise, he was removed from service by impugned order dated 04-08-2008, on the ground that he has sought an appointment on compassionate grounds, without disclosing the fact that after the death of his father, his mother was given employment as she was entitled to be considered on compassionate grounds.
The case of the appellant before the Writ Court was that after regularization of his service, he had worked for more than three decades and as such, the termination was erroneous and without application of mind.
The learned Writ Court, having examined all the facts, held that from a reading of the appointment order dated 15-03-1985 read with the relevant Government Order, it was evident that the appellant was not appointed on compassionate grounds. After regularization, the appellant was allowed to continue till the impugned termination order was passed on the basis that he has suppressed the material fact of the employment of his mother. Recording the aforestated finding, the learned Writ Court held the termination order as bad and as such, granting reinstatement, directed to pay 25% of the backwages with continuity of service and other consequential relief within a period of one month.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that once the order of termination is found illegal, the appellant is entitled to full backwages as a natural consequence.
It is well-settled principle of law that grant of backwages is not automatic, but, depends on several factors like gainful employment, absence from work, nature of conduct and also, the period the employee spent outside the service.
In the case on hand, there is no pleading to establish that the appellant was gainfully employed elsewhere. Thus, the learned Writ Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to 25% backwages, with continuity of service and other consequential benefits.
For the reasons mentioned herein above, we do not find any error, irregularity or irrationality in the order of the Writ Court, warranting interference.
The writ appeal is dismissed as above. No costs.