The Patna High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal held that delay in paying salary in lieu of notice did not vitiate termination of temporary service for misdeclaration of criminal antecedents.
The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed holding the termination of service lawful.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.987 of 2014 IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7540 of 2007
===========================================================
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr Awadh Bihari Ojha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Bharat Bhushan Mr Nitesh Kumar Mr Anand Vardhan For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Asst. S.G. Mr Anjani Kumar Sharan, CGC =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 03-05-2017
Writ application of the petitioner, who is appellant herein, was dismissed on 22.4.2014. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred seeking setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
Patna High Court LPA No.987 of 2014 dt.03-05-2017
2/4
where a report was received that he was involved in a criminal case, the fact not declared. Subsequently, an explanation was sought to be given that it was a petty matter relating to dispute between two families, which led to filing of a false criminal case, which got compromised as well.
Patna High Court LPA No.987 of 2014 dt.03-05-2017
3/4
judgment by suppressing the fact of his being involved in a criminal case not having been explained in the declaration, the decision of the respondents to terminate his service was not found to be erroneous by the learned Single Judge.
“4. So far as the contention in relation to noncompliance with the provison of Rule 6 is concerned, firstly, the same does not appear to have been taken before the Tribunal. Secondly, on a plain reading of the provision of Rule 6 and the proviso thereto it is clear that it would not vitiate the order of termination ipso facto and the employee will be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of basic pay plus dearness allowance for the period of notice at the same rate at which he was drawing monthly before the termination or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month. Mr Mohanty urged before us that the note to the aforesaid rule, as well as the form indicated therein support the proposition that the payment of compensation in lieu of one month’s notice must be simultaneous with the order of termination or else the order of termination would be vitiated. We are unable to accept this submission.
Patna High Court LPA No.987 of 2014 dt.03-05-2017
4/4
The provision contained in the proviso to Rule 6 from the very language of the proviso entitles the delinquent a month’s basic allowance plus dearness allowance for the period of notice. In this view of the matter even assuming that the said payment has not been made along with the order of termination, the order of termination will not get vitiated on that score.”
to in relation to Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, not having any application, the Court comes to a considered opinion that the dismissal of the writ application cannot be said to be erroneous in law or in fact.
Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)
(Nilu Agrawal, J)
sk
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 05.5.2017 Transmission NA Date
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in payment of salary and allowances in lieu of notice during the period following the termination of temporary service vitiates the order of termination.
Whether the decision to terminate the appellant's service due to non-disclosure of criminal antecedents during probation was erroneous.
Whether Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act has any application to the case of a temporary government servant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Brij Mohan Singh V. Union of IndiaFollowed¶27
Brij Mohan Singh V. Union of India, (2002) 9 SCC 453 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
KANHAIYA RAM S/O SRI PADARATH RAM
THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, B/S, CRPF, PATNA
AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
NILU AGRAWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
