AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.L. Dave, J.—Appeal is admitted.
Since a very short question is involved, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the request of parties.
This appeal is preferred to challenge an order passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 12556 of 2008 dated 17.10.2008 dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and laches. The petition was preferred by the present appellant to challenge the order of the Standing Committee of the Surat Municipal Corporation dated 5.7.2007.
The appellant is in service of respondent - Corporation. He came to be proceeded against; departmentally and was removed from service by an order dated 21.12.2002 passed by Municipal Commissioner, Surat Municipal Corporation. He challenged the said order before the Standing Committee and the Standing Committee in its decision dated 5.7.2007 came to the conclusion that the appellant is to be reinstated in service without back wages but with continuity of service for the purpose of pension and seniority. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached this Court with Special Civil Application No. 12556 of 2008 which came to be dismissed and hence this appeal.
Heard learned advocate Mr. Suthar for the appellant and learned Senior Counsel Mr. Prashant Desai appearing with Mr. Pandya for the respondent - Corporation.
The order of the Standing Committee was passed on 5.7.2007 and the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed somewhere in July 2008. No period of limitation is prescribed, and therefore, it has to be preferred within reasonable time as held by the Apex Court and the reasonable period to be treated as three years ordinarily. The petition, therefore, cannot be said to be suffering from delay and laches.
Examining the case on merits, it has to be noted that the allegation against the appellant was that although he was in service, his wife was given the contract of supplying mural paintings. The explanation was that she had been receiving such contracts even prior to their marriage and he has played no role in securing the contract. This explanation seems to have found favour with the Standing Committee and the Standing Committee therefore ordered his reinstatement. Once a decision is taken to reinstate an employee, meaning thereby that the charges of misconduct are not established, the employee has to be reinstated unconditionally in ordinary course. In the instant case, reinstatement is ordered without back wages and he is ordered to be treated as on duty only for the limited purpose of seniority and pension and this has aggrieved the appellant and in our view, rightly so.
Once reinstatement is directed, it has to be treated as continuity of service for all purposes and not limited to seniority and pension. In the instant case, there is a lag of about five years between removal of service and reinstatement, and if continuity is given, the appellant would earn increments for that period which would ultimately benefit him in his pay fixation and other retiral dues like gratuity etc. This is done without assigning any reason. The restriction ought not to have been imposed in absence of reasons when punishment is set aside and we are therefore of the view that the appellant''s case for continuity of service for all purposes has to be accepted.
So far as back wages are concerned, the appellant has not worked with the Corporation and therefore the Standing Committee was justified in reinstating him without back wages and we do not propose to interfere with the said order.
Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The order of reinstatement passed by the Standing Committee of the Surat Municipal Corporation dated 5.7.2007 is hereby modified to the effect that the appellant would be treated to have been reinstated with continuity of service for all purposes but without back wages for the period during which he was not on duty. The appellant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.