Jharkhand High Court Directs State To Release 19 Yrs Of Pending Salary To Employee Who Was Reinstated After Illegal Termination
The Jharkhand High Court has directed the State government to release 19 years of pending salary to an illegally terminated employee of its Department of Industries (Handloom, Resham and Sericulture).The court reiterated that in cases where an employee is found to be entirely blameless, yet subjected to illegal termination motivated by malice, it would be unjust to deny them the benefits...
The Jharkhand High Court has directed the State government to release 19 years of pending salary to an illegally terminated employee of its Department of Industries (Handloom, Resham and Sericulture).
The court reiterated that in cases where an employee is found to be entirely blameless, yet subjected to illegal termination motivated by malice, it would be unjust to deny them the benefits of employment they rightfully deserve.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi presiding over the case held, “If the Court comes to the conclusion that there is illegality on behalf of the authority concerned, and the petitioner was not allowed to work, the Court is required to quash the order and pass appropriate order. In the case in hand, it has already been held by this Court that by the impugned order by which the petitioner was terminated, was not found to be legal, and it was quashed and the predecessor of the present respondent no.2 has also taken a decision in favour of the petitioner, however, after three years, the present order has been passed.”
“Thus, for the wrong of the respondent State, the petitioner was prevented to work and if such a situation is there, the case of the petitioner is covered in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep, son of Raj Kumar Jain v. Manganese Ore ( India ) Limited, (2022) 3 SCC 683 in which it has been held that the question arises as to whether the back wages is to be given and as to what would be the extent of back wages…” Justice Dwivedi added.
The petitioner was initially appointed as a clerk-cum-cashier at one of Department's pilot project center in 1984. As per petitioner's claim, his services were confirmed, and he received time-bound promotions. However, in 1998, the Director of Industries issued instructions not to pay salaries to the petitioner and two others- Subhash Chandra Yadav and Shailendra Kumar. Disciplinary action was initiated by issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner, ultimately leading to his termination on December 12, 2007.
The legal challenge mounted by the petitioner against his termination resulted in the Jharkhand High Court setting aside the termination and remanding the matter back to the competent authority.
Subsequently, on March 24, 2017, the Director recognised that petitioner's case was comparable to that of Shailendra Kumar, who had been reinstated with all consequential benefits. He stressed that the petitioner's entitlement to benefits should mirror those of Shailendra Kumar as per the Patna High Court's directive, which included salary entitlement. However, by impugned order, petitioner's salary with effect from 01.04.1998 to 12.04.2017 was withheld, as he had not worked during that period.
State said the petitioner had not worked for the said period and therefore the salary for that period was not paid however the entire retiral benefits has already been paid.
In its ruling, the Court emphasized that once the dismissal order was overturned and a decision was rendered in favor of the petitioner, there was no justification for withholding the petitioner's salary for the period from April 1, 1998, to April 12, 2017.
Examining the facts of the case, the Court affirmed, “there is no doubt that the petitioner has not worked for certain period from 01.04.1998 till 12.04.2017 and the principle of 'no work no pay' will apply in the facts and circumstances of each case, but there are parameters of passing such orders.”
It was asserted that if the Court finds the authority's actions to be illegal and the petitioner was unjustly prevented from working, it must annul the order and issue appropriate relief.
The Court reiterated, “Thus, it is well settled that in the case where it is found that the employee is not at all at fault and yet he was visited with illegal termination which is actually a device by malice which may be unfair to deny him the fruits of employment which would have enjoyed, but for mala-fide termination, he was not allowed. In view of above facts and considering the law on the issue in question, the petitioner is entitled for salary with effect from 01.04.1998 till 12.04.2017.”
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to receive salary from April 1, 1998, to April 12, 2017.
Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the petitioner's termination order had already been invalidated, and the predecessor of the relevant authority had acknowledged the petitioner's entitlement to arrears.
Consequently, the Court annulled the impugned order dated November 12, 2020, and directed the respondents to release the petitioner's salary from April 1, 1998, to April 12, 2017, within six weeks.
Case No.: W.P.(S) No.605 of 2024
Case Title: Bhavesh Kant Jha vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 52