9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be treated in service from the date of removal till the date of actual reinstatement in service and would accordingly be entitled to seniority and the right to be considered for promotion, but would not be entitled to back wages. There are no infirmity with the concurrent findings of the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court. There is a difference between reappointment and reinstatement. Reinstatement means to return a person or thing to its previous position or status. An order of reinstatement puts a person back to the same position. The Tribunal had granted the Respondent, the relief of reinstatement. Considering that the Respondent had not actually rendered service to the Appellant-Bank and that he had been earn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Bank through the Banking Service Recruitment Board, Lucknow on 6th May 1979 and answered the questions on his behalf. Pursuant to the chargesheet, Disciplinary Enquiry was held after which the services of the Respondent were terminated by the Appellant-Bank by an order dated 29th January 1982. 5. The Respondent raised an industrial dispute. By Notification No. L-12012/135/84-D.II(A) dated 7th April 1988, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal , the dispute of Whether the action of the management of the Central Bank of India, Gwalior in dismissing from service Shri Dragendra Singh Jadon, Agricultural Assistant wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants states that, in compliance of the order dated 8th May 2012, the Appellant-Bank reinstated the Respondent with effect from his date of reporting i.e. 18th August 2012. 9. Sometime in March 2013, the Respondent moved a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 1571 of 2013 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, seeking orders on the Appellant-Bank to reinstate the Respondent to the post of Agricultural Finance Officer with notional fixation of pay upto 10th September 2008 i.e. the date of the Award of the Tribunal and for payment of actual salary from 10th September 2008, being the date of the Award. The Respondent also prayed that the Appellant-Bank be directed to fix the seniority and the current salary of the Respondent, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid length of service. In the opinion of this Court, the order (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent-Bank is not in conformity with the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the impugned order, so far as it relates to denying benefits to the Petitioner for the intervening period (the period from the date of removal of the Petitioner from service to the date of his reinstatement), excepting denial of back wages is quashed and it is held that the Petitioner shall be held entitled for all the benefits except back wages construing him to be in service from the date of removal till the date of actual reinstatement in service. Needless to mention that consequent upon the reinstatement, Petitioner is entitled to regular salary from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent and W.P. No. 3091 of 2009(S) filed by the Appellants were heard analogously and dismissed by a common order dated 8th May 2012. The Respondent not only mentioned the fact that he had initiated a Writ Petition earlier, but also annexed a copy of the common judgment and order of the High Court in the earlier Writ Petitions as Annexure P-4. 15. Even though, the Court may not have specifically dealt with the issue of res judicata raised by the Appellant-Bank as a preliminary issue, it is clear from the judgment and order of the Single Bench as also the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench, that the second writ petition was not barred by the principles of res judicata or analogous principles. 16. The principles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion in the second writ petition was, whether, for the purposes of seniority and fixation of pay, the Respondent was to be treated as a newly appointed employee and that too with effect from 18th August 2012, when the Award directing his reinstatement was dated 10th September 2008. 19. In our considered view, the learned Single Bench of the High Court rightly granted relief to the Respondent. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Appeal of the Appellants and directed that the Respondent would have to be treated in service from the date of removal till the date of actual reinstatement in service and would accordingly be entitled to seniority and the right to be considered for promotion, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
