Allowed

Manoj Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC13 Aug 2010CWJC/2132/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This jurisdiction held that when a termination is quashed and reinstatement directed, there is continuity of service with no break. Denial of back wages does not negate reinstatement continuity, and the department was directed to consider the petitioner's claim for A.C.P. benefits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider claim for grant of A.C.P. benefits within three months; writ application allowed.

Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2132 of 2010

¶2

MANOJ KUMAR S/O SHRI RAJESHWAR PRASAD R/O VILL JAMALPUR GOGRI,P.O.GOGRI,P.S.GOGRI,DISTT-KHAGARIA,PRESENTLY POSTED AS THE LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER,NIRMALI ,P.O.& P.S.SUPAUL,BIHAR

¶3

Versus

¶4

THE STATE OF BIHAR, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA

¶5

THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA

¶6

THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE LABOUR GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA

¶7

THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, MUNGER DIVISION, BEGUSARAI 5. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, AGRICULTURE LABOUR, BHAGALPUR

¶8

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AGRICULTURE LABOUR, KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSA

¶9

 -----------

¶10

13.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶11

The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of consideration for grant of A.C.P., notwithstanding his representations for the same.

¶12

The bone of contention is an earlier termination dated 9.8.1991 of the petitioner when he came to be reinstated by order dated 17.1.1995 in C.W.J.C. No. 5693 of 1991. If the period in between the termination and reinstatement by the order of this Court

¶13

amounts to a break in service, the petitioner may not have a claim for computation of the service period prior to termination. If, it is not a break in service and there is continuity of service, the petitioner is entitled to be considered accordingly. The respondents in their counter affidavit take the stand that the consequent to the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5693 of 1991, it was a fresh appointment and consequentially, there was a break in

¶14

¶15

his service.

¶16

On a bare reading of the earlier order dated 17.1.1995 of this Court at paragraph10, it is apparent that the Court found the termination to be unsustainable and it was quashed with direction for reinstatement within a period of fortnight. Liberty was given to hold a fresh inquiry which admittedly has not been held.

¶17

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order on the writ petition has not been even challenged by the respondents.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State submits that this Court specifically denied back wages and thus there is no continuity in service.

¶19

The issue of reinstatement and denial of back wages are separate issues. Denial of back wages shall not lead to a conclusion that there was no reinstatement with continuity. If the termination was quashed as not sustainable in law with direction for reinstatement, the legal position that emerges is that there was never a termination. Continuity in service is a natural corollary. Back wages is an entirely different issue which the Courts have held does not follow automatically upon reinstatement. This is based on the theory that a person cannot have a dual benefit. He may have been employed elsewhere, and have had a source of income. He would stand to have a double benefit of income from two sources. It is for that reason that the Courts have held that back wages do not follow as a matter of course.

¶20

¶21

This Court, therefore, holds that the consequent to the termination having been set aside and reinstatement directed, there is continuity in service with no break.

¶22

The respondents are directed to consider his claim for grant of A.C.P. benefits accordingly within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶23

The writ application stands allowed.

¶24

P.K.

¶25

(Navin Sinha, J.)

Manoj Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nand Kishore Prasad Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Nawal Kishore Prasad Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Brijnandan Prasad Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sanju Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Maa Atwariya Devi Industrial T Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Devendra Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.