Pritam Singh Toor vs The State of Punjab and Another

N.C. Jain, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus. The necessary facts which have given rise to the filing of the present petition may be noticed.

According to the petitioner, he was selected as Sub-Inspector. Food and Supplies in the year 1969. His services were terminated vide order dated 27.4.1971. The order of termination of services was subjected to challenge by institution of a civil suit which was decreed by the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Ludhlana, vide his judgment and decree dated 7.5.1975. It was held that the order of termination dated 27.4.1971 was illegal and void. Consequently, declaration as prayed in the suit was granted. The aforesaid judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge was upheld in the first appeal and in regular second appeal by this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that he, after obtaining the relief in the civil suit, represented to the respondents that he be allowed to resume his duties and he should be paid all emoluments with retrospective date and he may also be granted all consequential reliefs. For obtaining the necessary relief, a representation dated 4.11.1976 was given, copy of which is attached with this petition as Annexure P4. The petitioner has stated that instead of reinstating him with full pay and service benefits, he was reappointed as Sub Inspector on temporary basis by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 15.1 1.1976 (Annexure P5). No relief having been granted to the petitioner, he was compelled to file a contempt petition C.O. C.P. No. 98 of 1977 in this Court which was decided on 1.6.1977 with the observation that the Director, Food and Supplies appointed the petitioner on temporary basis on account of some procedural difficulties regarding the creation of post and that the petitioner may represent to the appropriate authority for passing appropriate orders and that judgment and decree of the civil court be implemented. Even after the decision of the contempt petition, the petitioner sent representation on 16.6.1977 for granting him all the necessary benefits. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of complying with the judgment and decree of the civil court affirmed by this Court, the respondents passed yet another order dated 9.8.1978 creating a post of Sub-Inspector for the petitioner from 21.3.1974 to 7.6.1975 and paid the arrears of pay and allowances to the petitioner for this period only whereas he was entitled to his pay and allowances coupled with other consequential reliefs with effect from 27.4.1971 to 15.1 1.1976. It has further been stated that the respondents circulated a seniority list of Sub Inspectors working in the department as on 30.9.1976 and in that seniority list the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 305. Mr. R.K. Chopra appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Sub Inspectors who were junior to the petitioner have been promoted to the post of Inspectors without considering the clam of the petitioner. In fact, his basic grouse is that he is entitled to all service1 benefits consequent upon the passing of the civil court decree which was affirmed by this Court. In the written statement the factual position has not been denied. However, it is stated that the petitioner was re-appointed after manifold procedures and difficulties and that a supernumerary post was got created with effect from 21.3.1974 to 7.6.1975 to accommodate the petitioner in accordance with the decision of the court to facilitate the payment of arrears of pay etc. After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of view that this writ petition deserves to be allowed. Once the civil court before whom the order of termination was challenged declared the same to be illegal and void, the petitioner is ipso-facto entitled to all the service benefits. The State cannot take shelter behind any technicality. The petitioner is entitled to all the arrears of salary and whatever increments he might have earned during this period. Not only that, he is entitled to be considered for promotion. I direct respondent No. 2 to pay all the arrears of salary with increments and all services benefits and consider his case for promotion. This may be done within a period of three months. Writ of mandamus is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.