1986 (8) TMI 12 - HC - Income Tax

High Court Invalidates Termination Order, Orders Reinstatement

The High Court declared a termination order under rule 24 of the Service Rules invalid as it was inconsistent with article 14 of the Constitution of ... Salary Issues: Challenge to termination order under rule 24 of Service Rules on grounds of inconsistency with article 14 of the Constitution of India, reinstatement with full back wages, implications of a transfer order, resignation of the appellant, calculation and payment of back wages and terminal benefits, application for income tax exemption, costs of the appeal.Analysis:The appellant challenged a termination order issued under rule 24 of the Service Rules, contending it was inconsistent with article 14 of the Constitution of India. The High Court upheld this contention based on a recent decision of the Supreme Court, declaring the rule invalid. Consequently, the termination order was set aside, leading to the appellant's reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits from the date of termination until reinstatement.Regarding a transfer order directing the appellant to New Delhi, the court clarified that the reinstatement implied reporting to the last assigned post, which was New Delhi. The appellant expressed readiness to resign immediately while claiming full back wages and terminal benefits calculated until a specified date. The court adjusted the payment amount to Rs. 21,000, considering the appellant's earnings during the period in question.The court accepted the appellant's resignation effective immediately, with instructions to submit a written resignation to the Bombay office within a week. The 1st respondent was directed to pay full back wages and terminal benefits by a specified date, with the appellant entitled to interest if the payment was delayed beyond that date. Additionally, the 1st respondent was instructed to seek income tax exemption for the lump sum back wages received by the appellant, with tax deductions to be made accordingly.In terms of costs, the court decided that each party should bear their respective costs of the appeal, considering the nature of the proceedings and the allowance of an amendment during the appeal process.