The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.20651 of 2017 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India) Gandaram Bhoi ....... Petitioner -Versus- Regulated Market Committee, Dunguripali & others ....... Opposite Parties Advocate for the parties For Petitioner : Mr. B. Baug, Senior Advocate For Opp. Party Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. T.R. Mehera, Advocate For Opposite Party No.3 : None ---------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment: 07.07.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. Mishra, J. This writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner with the following prayers. “PRAYER Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition and issue a ‘Rule-Nisi’ calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the Opposite parties shall not be directed to pay the balance arrear salary of the petitioner with effect from 01.09.2010 till date and thereafter per month regularly by taking into consideration the appointment of the petitioner in regular service with effect from 01.07.1994 and to clear up the balance arrear amount within a fixed period and if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make the said rule absolute” 2. The factual matrix, which led to filing of the present writ petition, is that the Petitioner was engaged as daily wager by the Chairman, Regulated Market Committee, Dunguripali along with five others. Vide order dated 01.07.1994, the services of the Petitioner and others were regularized as Yardman in the scale of pay of Rs.800-15-1010-EB120-1150/-. After regularization of his service, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. He was dismissed from service with effect from 01.04.1997. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the Petitioner preferred O.J.C. No.9627 of 1997. This Court, vide order date 01.05.2006, had been pleased to quash the said order of dismissal as the same was passed by the Opposite Party-Employer without any enquiry and providing an opportunity of hearing to the W.P.(C) No.20651 of 2017 Page 2 of 11 Petitioner. However, because of the observation made in the said order dated 01.05.2006, passed in O.J.C. No. 9627 of 1997, a fresh article of charge was issued against the Petitioner and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire in to the matter, who submitted his report finding the Petitioner guilty. However, without giving any second show cause notice, punishment was imposed on the Petitioner vide letter dated 27.08.2010 (Annexure-2), which is extracted below: REGULATED MARKET COMMITTEE, DUNGURIPALI At/PO-Dunguripali, Dist: Subarnapur-767023 (Orissa) Ref NO.345
Decision
O R D E R Date: 27.08.2010 After careful consideration of the matter in the Committee Meeting of RMC, Dunguripali held on 17/08/2010 & basing on the previous order of the Ex-Chairman, Sri Gandaram Bhoi, Ex-Yardman of RMC, Dunguripali is hereby reinstated in his service with effect from 01.09.2010 with imposing of following punishment. 1) 2) 3) He will not be entrusted with duties related to financial matter. He is imposed penalty of Rs.5,000/- which to be realized in 05(five) installments. The period of removal suspension as such. is treated as Sd/- Secretary By order of Chairman R.M.C., Dunguripali” (Emphasis supplied) W.P.(C) No.20651 of 2017 Page 3 of 11 3. Even though, vide order dated 27.08.2010, it was ordered that period of removal of the Petitioner is to be treated as suspension as such, in view of non- payment of subsistence allowance, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Court again in W.P.(C) No.9531 of 2012, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.09.2013 directing the Opposite Parties-Employers to pay subsistence allowance to the Petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said order. After his reinstatement with effect from 01.09.2010, his past period of service, i.e., from 01.04.1997 till the date of his reinstatement, was not counted for the purpose of continuous service and he was not paid his revised salary at par with other co-employees, who were regularized with him with effect from 01.07.1994. The Petitioner was only paid Rs.21,261/- per month whereas, other Yardmans were paid Rs.27,000/- per month. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted a representation on 15.05.2017 indicating therein that he is entitled to get all the service and W.P.(C) No.20651 of 2017 Page 4 of 11 financial benefits like other Yardmans, who were regularized along with him with effect from 01.07.1994. However, because of the inaction of the employer, he was being constrained to prefer the present writ petition. 4. Opposing to such prayer, a Counter Affidavit has been filed by the Opposite Party No.2. The sum and substance of the said Counter is that the Petitioner was not purely exonerated from the charges for the said period of dismissal. The said period was not treated as duty but was treated as suspension as such. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled to get the same salary at par with his co-employees. 5. Mr. Baug, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition, submitted that there is no mention in the order of punishment dated 27.08.2010 that the period for which the Petitioner was out of employment shall not be counted for any purpose, including for the purpose of future increments. Rather, he was paid subsistence allowance for the said period, being so directed by this W.P.(C) No.20651 of 2017 Page 5 of 11 Court in W.P.(C) No.9531 of 2012. Further, as per the settled position of law, the Petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits after his reinstatement in service so also future benefits at par with his co-employees, what he would have been paid, had he not been dismissed from service. To substantiate his submission, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2022 SC 3779 (Central Bank of India and others Vs. Dragendra Singh Jadon). 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that, during pendency of the present writ petition, the Petitioner was superannuated from service with effect from 31.01.2024. Hence, direction be given to the Opposite Party-Employer to pay him all the financial benefits, including increments, which were extended in favour of the counterparts of the Petitioner from time to time with effect from his date of reinstatement, i.e. 01.09.2010, till 31.01.2024. W.P.(C) No.20651 of 2017 Page 6 of 11 7. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-Bank, reiterating the stand taken in the Counter, submitted that because of the proved misconduct, the punishment was imposed on the Petitioner vide order dated 27.08.2010, which was never challenged by the Petitioner. Hence, the Opposite Party was justified in not paying the salary and other benefits to the Petitioner at par with the Co-Yardmans by counting the period from 01.04.1997 till 01.09.2010 as continuous service. 8. As is revealed from the punishment order dated 27.08.2010, admittedly, pursuant to the decision of the Committee of R.M.C., Dunguripali held on 17.08.2010 so also the previous order of the Ex-Chairman of R.M.C., Dunguripali, the Petitioner was reinstated in service with effect from 01.09.2010 imposing the punishment to the effect that he will not be entrusted with duties related to financial matter, he is liable to pay a penalty of Rs.5,000/-, which to be realized in five installments and it was ordered to treat the period of removal as suspension as such. Nowhere in the said W.P.(C) No.20651 of 2017 Page 7 of 11 order, it has been indicated that the period of removal i.e. from 01.04.1997 till 01.09.2010 shall not be treated as continuous service so also for the purpose of increment and other financial benefits. Rather, being directed by this Court, the Opposite Party-Employer paid the Petitioner subsistence allowance for the said period, as, vide order dated 27.08.2010, it was ordered that period of removal is to be treated as suspension as such. At this juncture, it would be apt to reproduce below the operative portion of the said order dated 12.09.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.9531 of 2012. till he was reinstated, “In view of the above, it is not disputed that the Petitioner continued under suspension from 01.04.1997 i.e. 27.08.2010. Hence, he is entitled to payment of subsistence allowance for the said period as per the rules. Accordingly, opposite parties are directed to ensure payment of the subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the aforesaid period as per rules, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three moths from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.” immediate steps take to (Emphasis supplied) 9. Further, law is well settled that, if a competent Court passes an order directing a dismissed or W.P.(C) No.20651 of 2017 Page 8 of 11 terminated employee to be reinstated, what would be the consequence. This Court is of the view that, if there is no mention in the order of punishment as to what would be the fate of past service, for which an employee was forced to remain out of employment on his reinstatement, the period of dismissal has to be counted for the purpose of continuous service and future service benefits. Hence, in absence of any specific observation made in the order dated 27.08.2010, vide which the Petitioner was reinstated in service with effect from 01.09.2010, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner’s period of suspension / termination / removal should have been taken into consideration for the purposes of increment and financial benefits at par with other co-employees. This Court is of further view that the Petitioner is entitled to all the benefits, including increments, which were being extended in favour of his counterparts from time to time. At this juncture, it would be apt to extract below the relevant paragraphs from the judgment in Central Bank of India (supra). W.P.(C) No.20651 of 2017 Page 9 of 11 the The Tribunal had of “20. We find no infirmity with the concurrent findings of the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court. There is a difference between reappointment reinstatement. and 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. 21. the granted Respondent, reinstatement. relief Considering that the Respondent had not actually rendered service to the Appellant-Bank and that he had been earning in the intervening period, the Tribunal denied him back wages. The Tribunal and the High Court (both the Single Bench and the Division Bench) have in effect and substance found the termination of service of the Respondent to be wrongful. take 22. advantage of its own wrong of wrongfully dismissing the Respondent from service, to deny him the benefit of seniority, promotion and other benefits to which he would have been entitled, if he had attended to his duties.” (Emphasis supplied) The Appellant-bank cannot 10. In view of the observation made above, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer made in the writ Petition. The Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2-Employers are directed to calculate the admissible unpaid differential salary and other benefits, which were being paid to the counterparts of the Petitioner, for the period from 27.08.2010 till 31.01.2024 and disburse the same in favour of the Petitioner at the earliest, preferably within a W.P.(C) No.20651 of 2017 Page 10 of 11 period of six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 11. It is made clear that, if the salary and other benefits, are not paid to the Petitioner within the stipulated period, as directed above, the Opposite Party- Employer shall be liable to pay 7% interest thereon from the delayed period. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs. …….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated, the 7th July, 2025/Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 12-Jul-2025 13:53:12 W.P.(C) No.20651 of 2017 Page 11 of 11