-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
In a significant judgment, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has reiterated that when an employee is reinstated due to imposition of a lesser punishment, it does not automatically entitle them to back wages or service benefits. The observation came from Hon'ble Mr. Justice Namit Kumar in the case of Gobinder Singh vs. Managing Director, PEPSU Road Transport Corporation and Others [CWP-20270-2014].
The petitioner, Gobinder Singh, approached the High Court seeking compliance with an earlier order dated November 6, 2009, which mandated his reinstatement and modification of his punishment. The original dispute dates back to 1989, when Singh, along with other employees, was terminated from PEPSU Road Transport Corporation for alleged negligence leading to financial loss.
After a series of legal battles, including writ petitions and appeals, the High Court had directed the modification of Singh's punishment to something lesser than removal from service. Complying with this, the respondent corporation later reinstated Singh, deeming him retired as of January 31, 2004, but denied him back wages or other service benefits.
In the present petition, Singh contended that the corporation had not fully implemented the High Court's earlier order. However, the respondent corporation maintained that they had complied with the order in its entirety.
Justice Kumar, in his judgment, cited the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of 'Om Pal Singh vs. Disciplinary Authority & Ors. 2020' (1) SCT 608 : 2020 (2), emphasizing that backwages, continuity of service, or consequential benefits do not necessarily follow reinstatement due to a lesser punishment. The Court observed, "Reduction of the penalty from dismissal to that of reduction in time scale of pay does not result in exoneration of the charges framed against him."
Further, the judgment also referred to the case 'State of Orissa and another vs. Mamata Mohanty', 2011 AIR (SCW) 1332, underlining the principle that relief not claimed cannot be granted.
Concluding the judgment, the Court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner's claim for back wages was not sustainable due to the limited scope of the petition and the finality of the orders already passed.
Date of Decision: January 30, 2024
GOBINDER SINGH VS MANAGING DIRECTOR PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS
