Vikram Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—This Court has examined the Policy Annexure R-1 dated 15.1.2013 formulated in pursuance to the observations made by this Court on 28.5.2012 which read as follows:

On considering the matter, the Court is of the view that a policy decision needs to be taken by the respondent State so that the situation which has arisen in the present case where the petitioner, on the basis of an order dated 16.03.2010 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Home Department, is seeking implementation of the said order vide which he was ordered to be reinstated whereas respondents are not complying with the said order.

The essence of the Court directions is that where the Government itself passes an order in favour of an employee but it remains operative and un-implemented then unless any remedy is availed or stay sought from Court it should be implemented within a reasonable time frame so as to avoid unnecessary litigation. This also seems to be in tune with the State Litigation Policy of Haryana.

Indisputably, in the present case the petitioner was dismissed from service on 9.4.2008 by the Superintendent of Police, Panchkula. The appeal failed. The revision was dismissed by the Director General of Police, Haryana. In the memorial submitted to the Home Secretary, Haryana, against the order in appeal passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana relief was granted to the petitioner and he was ordered to be reinstated to service. The administrative order of reinstatement was passed on 16.4.2010.

However, the order of the Home Secretary, Haryana was not implemented which led to the filing of this writ petition leading to the observations of this Court which have resulted in formulation of Policy decision (Annexure R-1). The petitioner has been reinstated on 16.7.2012 but by an order which reinstates with immediate effect, that is, prospectively thereby taking away past benefit accruing by virtue of recall of dismissal order without imposition of punishment.

The prayer in this petition is for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing that part of the reinstatement order which makes it prospective and therefore a writ of mandamus is sought against the respondents that the petitioner should be reinstated to his old post with effect from 16.3.2010 (P-8).

It may be seen that the order dated 16.3.2010 reinstating the petitioner to service has been passed without Court intervention. It has also been passed by the Authority competent to do so since the State Government has not questioned that order of its Home Secretary before this Court or in any other Court, nor any authority superior to the Home Secretary, Haryana has rescinded, varied or modified the order.

In the circumstances, an administrative order passed in favour of an employee should be given effect to immediately without waiting for him to cringe and seek due relief with a beggar''s bowl. Where rights stand crystallized by State action itself taken after conscious decision by the competent authority nothing would be more reprehensible than to put it on hold without there being an order of a superior authority or court of law staying or nullifying the principal order. The process of implementation after final orders are passed remains only in the realm of ministerial acts. The delay here is of about two years which cannot be said to be reasonable by any stretch of imagination. This writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is quashed to the extent it deprives benefit of deemed service from 9.4.2008 to 16.3.2010. A mandamus is, consequently issued directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner without delay with effect from 16.3.2010 with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, seniority etc.