Santosh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

2. Claim petition preferred by the petitioner was registered as Reference No. 402/2008. Reference for adjudication before the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court was as to whether petitioner’s termination on 20.10.2000 was legal and justified and if not then what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation were payable to him. Learned Labour Court passed the award on 04.06.2011 directing the respondents to reengage the petitioner. Back wages were not granted to the petitioner. He, was to be reflected at the same position as was assigned to him

¶12

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶13

2

¶14

( 2025:HHC:12077

¶15

earlier for maintaining his seniority and continuity of service.

¶16

Operative part of the award reads as under:-

¶17

“18. For all the aforesaid reasons discussed above the reference is partly allowed. Consequently the respondents are directed to reengage the petitioner. For the peculiar circumstances narrated hereinabove and more particular because the engagement of the petitioner has been ordered keeping in view the rengagement of Rattan Chand, no backwages are being ordered in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner shall continue to be reflected in the same position as he was placed earlier to said Rattan Chand as far as seniority and continuity of service is concerned. A copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Govt. for publication in the official gazette and the file after completion consigned to the record room.”

¶18

Respondents assailed the award in State of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Santosh Kumar² , which was dismissed on 29.12.2015. Special Leave Petition No. 17941/2016 preferred by the respondents-State against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 15.11.2016. Review Petition Nos.15151516/2017 moved by the respondents were dismissed on 02.08.2017 on ground of delay as well as on merits.

¶19

3. The respondents set out to implement the award. Vide order dated 12.04.2018 (Annexure P-2) services of the petitioner were regularized retrospectively with effect from 02.01.2007 on

¶20

2CWP No. 11042/2011 decided on 29.12.2015

¶21

3

¶22

( 2025:HHC:12077

¶23

notional basis and on actual basis w.e.f. 30.11.2017- the date when respondents permitted the petitioner to rejoin the services. Seniority was given to him w.e.f 02.01.2007. Actual monetary benefits were released in his favour w.e.f. 30.11.2017. 4. Petitioner’s present case is that he is entitled for release of actual benefits at least from the date of passing of the award i.e. 04.06.2011. Petitioner’s contention is that respondents have wrongly granted him monetary benefits from the date of passing of the award.

¶24

There is substance in the submission made for the petitioner. Award was passed in petitioner’s favour on 04.06.2011 directing the respondents to re-engage him without any backwages but the petitioner was to continue to be reflected at the same position as he was placed previously for the purpose of his seniority and continuity of service. The award was unsuccessfully assailed by the respondents before this Court and before the Hon’ble Apex Court. It was the respondents-Department, which delayed the implementation of the award. Had the award been implemented in time, the petitioner would have received actual monetary benefits from the date of passing the award. Respondents’ stand that the petitioner is not entitled for actual benefits with effect from the date of the passing of the award and can have financial benefits only from the date they implemented the award, is not tenable. It is the respondents, who

¶25

4

¶26

( 2025:HHC:12077

¶27

kept the petitioner away from the post/work by not implementing the award in time. Petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the delay on part of respondents in implementing the award that was passed in his favour on 04.06.2011. It is not the case of respondents that despite their directions to the petitioner to rejoin the service, he did not rejoin & disobeyed their order.

¶28

In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-2, the order dated 12.04.2018 is quashed to the extent it grants notional benefits to the petitioner. Respondents are directed to grant actual monetary benefits to the petitioner with effect from the date of passing the award i.e. 04.06.2011. The amount due, be released in his favour within six weeks. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶29

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶30

2^nd May, 2025(rohit)

Santosh Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonia Vs the State of Hp and Others

Dan Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Hem Lata Vs State of Hp and Others

Sujata Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Hem Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Mohit Sharma and Another Vs State of Hp and Others