Stale Claim Cannot Be Revived By A Representation : Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Direction To Reinstate Employee

Holding that a stale claim cannot be revived by a representation, the Supreme Court has set aside a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which directed the reinstatement of an employee with back-wages.

The Court noted that in an earlier proceeding, the High Court had upheld the termination of the services of the employee for misconduct. Fifteen years later, the employee filed a representation seeking reinstatement, and the High Court directed the consideration of the same, leading to a second round of litigation which resulted in the impuged judgment delivered on September 1, 2020.

 In the impugned judgement, the High Court had dismissed the Writ Appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge, setting aside the termination of the respondent and directing reinstatement with all consequential benefits and back wages from the date of termination until reinstatement.

While allowing the appeal in Nagar Panchayat, Kymore v. Hanuman Prasad Dwivedi, the Top Court observed that,

"The High Court ought not to have entertained a second round of proceedings instituted nearly fifteen years after the challenge to the order of termination attained finality by the dismissal of the writ petition. That order would operate as res judicata between the parties. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench, in appeal, have erred for the simple reason that once the termination was placed in contest and had been upheld by the dismissal of the writ petition in 1994, a stale of action could not have been revived, first, by a direction to dispose of the representation and, second, in a subsequent writ petition by directing reinstatement with back wages. The impugned order cannot co-exist with the earlier order upholding the termination."

Factual Background

The respondent ("Hanuman Prasad Dwivedi") was appointed as a casual employee by the Nagar Panchayat, Kymore ("appellant") in 1982 and was allotted the work of issuing ration cards for which he was to collect money and deposit it with the appellant. On June 4, 1990, the appellant terminated the services of the respondent after issuance of show cause notice. The respondent approached the High Court by way of writ challenging his termination from service. The High Court on January 6, 1994 dismissed the petition and the order dismissing the petition attained finality.

The Regional Deputy Director Insurance and Local Finance Audit to the Chief Nagar Palika Officer on 3 December 2008, issued a communication holding that a cashier had been found responsible and that the amount should be recovered and be deposited in the Panchayat treasury. Based on the communication, the respondent instituted a petition claiming reinstatement in service.

The High Court disposed of the petition on 6 November 2009 by directing the Nagar Panchayat to dispose of the representation of the employee within three months. On 9 February 2010, the representation was disposed of by a speaking order and the claim for reinstatement was rejected.

Against the speaking order, the respondent instituted a fresh writ petition. The Single Judge on February 20, 2020 granted reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.

However the Single Judge's order was assailed by the appellant before the Division Bench and the High Court on September 1, 2020 upheld the High Court's order.

Aggrieved by the High Court's order, Nagar Panchayat, Kymore approached the Supreme Court.

Submission Of Counsels

Advocate Manoj Kumar Sahu for the appellant submitted that the validity of the termination of the services of the respondent attained finality when the writ petition challenging the termination was dismissed on 6 January 1994. He further submitted that it was not open to the respondent to institute a fresh writ petition in 2009, nearly 15 years based on the communication dated 3 December 2008 of the Regional Deputy Director Insurance and Local Finance Audit. In this backdrop, he further submitted that the respondent was only a casual employee and the Single Judge had erred in directing full back wages with consequential benefits.

Senior Advocate Vijay Kumar for the respondent submitted that in 2008 when the communication was addressed by the Regional Deputy Director that it came to light that it was not the respondent but some other employees who were responsible. He also contended that the High Court had correctly entertained the writ petition initially in 2009 and thereafter in 2010 since the termination of the respondent was found to be invalid.

Case Title: Nagar Panchayat, Kymore v. Hanuman Prasad Dwivedi| Civil Appeal Nos 289-290 of 2022

Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 53

Click Here To Read/Download Order