1982 (10) TMI 219 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court modifies judgment, reinstates respondent without salary, recalculates salary upon reinstatement.

Municipal Board, Pratabgarh And Others Versus Mahendra Singh Chawla And Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, modifying the High Court's judgment. The respondent was to be treated as in service, disregarding the termination ... - Issues:1. Validity of termination of service and nature of appointment given to the respondent.2. Interpretation of the Resolution Ext. 6 and 7 regarding the appointment status.3. Decision on whether the respondent was a permanent employee and entitled to reinstatement.4. Consideration of humanitarian aspects and exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136.5. Determination of the appropriate relief and modification of the High Court's judgment.Analysis:1. The respondent, an Overseer, was initially appointed by the Municipal Board but was later prosecuted and convicted for attempting to accept illegal gratification. The Board terminated his service based on a directive from the Local Self Government Department. The respondent challenged the termination, claiming it was void and sought reinstatement. The trial court and District judge upheld the termination, but the High Court declared it illegal, granting the respondent arrears of salary until reinstatement.2. The High Court determined that the appointment given to the respondent through Resolution Ext. 6 was a reinstatement after revoking the suspension order, not a fresh appointment as claimed by the Municipal Board. The Resolution Ext. 7 also indicated the rejection of the respondent's request for salary during the suspension period, reinforcing the view of reinstatement rather than a new appointment.3. The respondent's status as a permanent employee was a key point of contention. The High Court held that the reinstatement did not alter his permanent status, contrary to the Municipal Board's argument that the fresh appointment made him a temporary servant. The Court concluded that the respondent was entitled to arrears of salary and benefits until his reinstatement, emphasizing his permanent employee status.4. The Supreme Court deliberated on the legal implications of the case and the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136. While acknowledging the legal position, the Court considered the humanitarian aspect, citing precedents where equitable considerations influenced judgments despite legal technicalities. The Court emphasized the need to balance the rule of law with equitable outcomes, leading to a modified judgment in favor of the respondent.5. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, modifying the High Court's judgment. The respondent was to be treated as in service, disregarding the termination order, but without entitlement to salary during the period of termination. Upon reinstatement, his salary was to be recalculated to include all due increments. The Court set aside the rest of the High Court's judgment, except for a minor amount decreed by the trial court, and ordered the respondent to report for duty within two weeks. No costs were awarded in the circumstances of the case.