Reinstatement Upon Setting Aside Termination Not Re-Employment, Employee Entitled To Seniority, Salary Arrears Severed Due To Termination: Chhattisgarh HC

Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court observed that once the termination of the state employee was set aside without further enquiry, then the employee would be entitled to receive all the consequential benefits that he had not received during the period of termination.

The Court said that the period during which the state employee was out of a job shall be treated as duty for all purposes and he shall be entitled to get full pay and allowances for the said period.

In this case, the petitioner/state employee was terminated from his job on 19.04.1991. Thereafter on 02.11.1999, the case was decided in favour of the petitioner and his termination was set aside. The respondent/state denied benefits accrued to him during the period he was out of the job.

According to the State, the period during which the petition was not working could not be considered as regularized, and reinstatement of the petitioner upon setting aside of the termination would be considered as re-employment of the petitioner.

Rejecting the State's argument, the bench comprising Justice Goutam Bhaduri held that reinstatement of the petitioner upon setting aside of the termination order cannot be treated to be reemployment of the petitioner to the said post.

“The period of 8 years i.e., 19.04.1991 to 18.05.1999 would not be taken to be break in service and on setting aside of termination of service, petitioner cannot be treated as re-employed”, the court said.

“The petitioner would be entitled for all consequential benefits including his seniority which was severed due to such termination though was abridged by the subsequent order of the SAT. The petitioner shall also be entitled for fixation of salary as also arrears of salary in between the period from 1991 to 1999 for which he was deprived.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Appearance:

For Petitioners: Mr. Anup Majumdar & Mr. Vibhor Govardhan, Advocates

For the State/ Respondent: Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate

Case Title: Abdul Rahman Ahmed Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., WP No. 3899 of 2006

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (CHH) 17 

Click here to read/download the judgment