Mool Chand Thakur v. BSNL) & Ors.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is clear that the respondent Mool Chand Thakur was only a Daily Wages Employee and his services were terminated and in the earlier round of litigation in T.A.No.59/2009, considering the fact that the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in the same capacity from which his services were terminated. The respondent/ employee did not have any lien to the post and, therefore vide order dated 1.4.1997, respondent was ordered to be reinstated as a Daily wages Employee. Even though, the order was passed on 1.4.1997, the respondent did not join and it was only after a period of more than 12 years after the respondent was acquitted on 17.1.2007 that he approached for joining duties. Normally, the principle applicable for reinstatement of a regular employee who is acquitted in a Criminal Case will not apply in the present case. Present is the case when the employee namely, Mool Chand Thakur was only a Daily Wages Employee and the tribunal has only directed for considering the case of the employees for reinstatement, even though the order passed on 1.4.1997 for the reinstatement of the respondent Mool Chand Thakur was passed, the respondent did not report for joining duties. The petitioners herein cannot be blamed for this act of the respondent. It was only because of the respondent's act of commission and omission that he was involved or implicated in the criminal case and the departmental authorities cannot be held responsible for the same. A Daily Wages Employee does not have any lien to any particular post nor does he have any legal right to continue on the post held in the capacity of a Daily Wages Employee. In the present case, the respondent's whereabouts were not known for a period of 12 years and Central Administrative tribunal in the impugned order directed for considering the case of the respondent in the same capacity after a period of more than 12 years. However, while doing so, in passing the impugned order, learned tribunal lost sight of the fact that the respondent/ employee was a Daily Wages Employee, he does not have any lien to any post and, therefore, there is no question of reinstatement on the same post after a period of 12 years when the tribunal has only directed for reinstatement. The department passed an order on 1.4.1997 directing for reinstatement of the Respondent/Employee. The Respondent/ Employee having not reported for joining duties within the time stipulated, the department is not required to reinstate him now in a capacity of Daily Wages Employee. However, in the garb of the reinstatement ordered more than 12 years back, no order by way of reinstatement could be passed for a simple reason that the department is not responsible for the situation created by the respondent/ employee due to his involvement in a Criminal Case, nor is department required to reinstate the daily wages employee after a long period of time. That apart, the respondent/ employee could be reinstated only if he was permanent employee of the department or has lien on the said post. As Daily Wages Employee, he could not claim reinstatement after a long period of time. Finding the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal to be wholly unsustainable, the same cannot be upheld. Even though, during the course of hearing Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Basanti Prasad Vs. Chairman Bihar School Examination Board and others 2009 (6) SCC 791 to contend that the respondent/ employee is entitled for reinstatement, it is seen that in the aforesaid case, the employee concerned was a permanent employee in the regular establishment holding a lien over a post and it was under such circumstances, he was directed to be reinstated after his acquittal in a Criminal Case. In the present case, the respondent Mool Chand Thakur is a Daily Wages Employee and he does not have any lien to the post. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no ground to interfere in the matter, the petition is allowed. The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal being wholly unsustainable and contrary to the principle of law, is quashed and liberty is granted to the respondent to approach the department and seek for his fresh engagement as a Daily Wages Employee and it would be for the department to consider the same in accordance with law. With the aforesaid the petition is allowed and disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge (T.K.Kaushal) Judge