A special appeal challenging a writ order denying service benefits to a dismissed employee. The Supreme Court held that interim permission to continue service does not alter the statutory dismissal date, and the appeal was dismissed.
No interference with the impugned judgment or order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 619 of 2011
Appellant :- Mangal Sain Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Mohan Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S.K. Mishra.,Sameer Sharma
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
None is present on behalf of the appellant. The appeal being pending since 2011, we considered it appropriate to examine its merits.
The instant appeal is preferred to question correctness of the judgment and order dated 07.02.2011 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 75692 of 2005.
In brief, factual matrix of the case is that the appellant was dismissed from service under an order dated 22.12.1978 in connection with two cases of misconduct. A challenge to the same was given by raising an industrial dispute. The labour court under an award dated 15th June, 1985 declared the appellant workman entitled to be reinstated in service. Aggrieved by the award passed by the lower court, the respondent-Corporation preferred a writ petition that came to be allowed by the order dated 12th December 1989. Suffice to state that from the date of award and the date of acceptance of the writ petition, the appellant was allowed to continue in service.
On acceptance of the writ petition, the employer discontinued the appellant from service and no benefit for the period he served subsequent to his dismissal from service was given. A challenge was given to the same by way of filing a writ petition that came to be rejected by the judgment impugned.
Learned Single Bench arrived at the conclusion that once an order of dismissal has been affirmed, no benefit of service could have been allowed to the appellant as the dismissal is to be effected from the date of the order i.e. on 22nd December 1978.
We do not find any error with the order passed by the learned Single Bench. Merely on the count that the appellant was permitted to continue in service by an interim order of this Court the effect of the order of dismissal cannot be altered. The
appellant is required to be treated as an employee dismissed from service from the date the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal.
In view of the above, no interference with the judgment impugned is warranted. The appeal is dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 21.1.2020 M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the dismissal date of the appellant can be altered because he was allowed to continue in service after an interim order?
Whether the appellant entitled to benefit of service for the period served after his dismissal date?
Mangal Sain
State of U.P.
Another
Govind Mathur
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
