GURPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(SC)-2002-1-4
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
January 18,2002
GURPREET SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
VISHNUJI SURSINGJI THAKORE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-1-51] [REFERRED TO]HAMIRBHAI MEGHABHAI GOHIL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-1-65] [REFERRED TO]
BALUBHA ASHABHAI MANEK VS. GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWARAGE BOARD [LAWS(GJH)-2020-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
BALUBHA ASHABHAI MANEK VS. GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWARAGE BOARD [LAWS(GJH)-2020-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
RAJBAI AELAMKHAN MALEK VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-2-1209] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF OFFICER VS. DIPAKBHAI KANABHAI VAJA [LAWS(GJH)-2023-3-970] [REFERRED TO]
RUPABHAI MANUBHAI SANIYARA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-10-360] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH AND ORS. VS. DELHI JAL BOARD [LAWS(DLH)-2015-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIMALI KANTILAL KASHIRAM VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-2-1027] [REFERRED TO]
HARESH VALJI NAGPARA VS. GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-2-1150] [REFERRED TO]
THERESIA J. PARMAR VS. SANJAY PRASAD [LAWS(GJH)-2022-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWINBHAI MAGANBHAI BHALODIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-9-1784] [REFERRED TO]
REMATBEN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
MAHIPATSINH SARDARSINH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-7-1691] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD WORKERS UNION, GURDASPUR VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2010-8-209] [REFERRED TO]
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. OM PARKASH (RETD.) FITTER AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-5-299] [REFERRED]
SARIKA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2020-1-48] [REFERRED TO]
B K BIDARI VS. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K S R T C [LAWS(KAR)-2018-3-113] [REFERRED TO]
A KRISHNAPPA VS. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC [LAWS(KAR)-2013-10-370] [REFERRED]
PANCHABHAI MOTIBHAI RIBADIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-3-1720] [REFERRED TO]
BALWANTBHAI CHAGANBHAI BARIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-2-90] [REFERRED TO]
SAVJIBHAI SHAMJIBHAI BAHUKIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-2-1104] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. RANJITSINH PRABHATSINH JADEJA [LAWS(GJH)-2022-9-388] [REFERRED TO]
DAHYABHAI LAGHARBHAI MAKWANA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-9-1323] [REFERRED TO]
DAHYABHAI LAGHARBHAI MAKWANA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-9-1323] [REFERRED TO]
BOOTA SINGH VS. CHANDIGARH TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2009-5-255] [REFERRED]
HARISHANKAR PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2010-12-76] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAKANT G MODI VS. SHREE RAM MILLS LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2013-3-256] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. KANTIBHAI LAVJIBHAI PIPARIA [LAWS(GJH)-2022-9-1719] [REFERRED TO]
TARMOHMAD ALARAKHA BALOCH VS. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER [LAWS(GJH)-2022-8-627] [REFERRED TO]
TARMOHMAD ALARAKHA BALOCH VS. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER [LAWS(GJH)-2022-8-627] [REFERRED TO]
D.T. MANJUNATH VS. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER [LAWS(KAR)-2023-6-603] [REFERRED TO]
KANJI SUMAR KATUA VS. BANK OF BARODA AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-7-77] [REFERRED TO]
DHIRAJLAL TULSIDAS PARMAR VS. BHANVAD MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(GJH)-2017-11-253] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. RAJNIKANT DALPATRAM BHATT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-6-1710] [REFERRED TO]
SAVSHIBHAI JIVABHAI CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-2-300] [REFERRED TO]
PARSHOTTAMBHAI GOVABHAI DABHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-9-1507] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-4-215] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP SINGH VS. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2016-11-50] [REFERRED TO]
YASHWANT SINGH VS. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION [LAWS(UTN)-2011-8-34] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD RAVJIBHAI RAJPUT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT FISHERIES CENTRAL COOP ASSOCIATION LTD VS. RAJENDRA MANEKLAL THAKKAR [LAWS(GJH)-2016-10-84] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGIRATHSINH BHARATSINH RANA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-2-105] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. DINESH SAMATBHAI RIBADIYA [LAWS(GJH)-2023-7-1206] [REFERRED TO]
RAJUBHAI RAMBHUJBHAI YADAV VS. DIRECTOR, GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD [LAWS(GJH)-2022-2-41] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. JAGDISH GAMIT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-2-1163] [REFERRED TO]
VITTHALBHAI ANJANBHAI MAKWANA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-7-1798] [REFERRED TO]
JAGABHAI CHAGANBHAI PARMAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-2-1534] [REFERRED TO]
THAKARSHIBHAI AMARSHIBHAI CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-1-64] [REFERRED TO]
THAKARSHIBHAI AMARSHIBHAI CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-1-64] [REFERRED TO]
R. GANGABYRAIAH VS. GENERAL MANAGER [LAWS(KAR)-2012-8-229] [REFERRED TO]
SHAM LAL VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, AMBALA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2009-3-289] [REFERRED]
DIGAR KUMAR VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2017-12-69] [REFERRED TO]
HEIRS OF DECD. DHIRUBHAI LAVABHAI SUVAGIYA VS. RANGE FOREST OFFICER [LAWS(GJH)-2021-11-413] [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY VS. RAJENDRASINH HAMIRSINH PARMAR [LAWS(GJH)-2021-6-145] [REFERRED TO]
VANRAJSINH AJITSINH PARMAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-2-437] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. MAHMADBHAI ISMAILBHAI MALEK [LAWS(GJH)-2022-2-776] [REFERRED TO]
RAMBAI LAGHARKHAN MALEK VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-3-634] [REFERRED TO]
RAMBAI LAGHARKHAN MALEK VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-3-634] [REFERRED TO]
MANGALSINH DANUBHAI PARMAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-8-1023] [REFERRED TO]
INDRA KUMAR FAKIRAJI BHIL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-7-853] [REFERRED TO]
M/S GARRISON ENGINEER (CENTRAL), DELHI CANTT VS. M.J. PRASAD [LAWS(DLH)-2022-3-54] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LIMITED VS. KANJIBHAI MAGANBHAI SOLANKI [LAWS(GJH)-2022-12-1381] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMALJIT SINGH AND OTHERS VS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(P&H)-2007-12-178] [REFERRED]
HARI MOHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-11-89] [REFERRED TO]
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER VS. TARMOHMAD ALARAKHA BALOCH [LAWS(GJH)-2023-8-60] [REFERRED TO]
TUKARAM S/O LATE SHRI CHUNNU RAM SAHU VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH THE SECRETARY [LAWS(CHH)-2017-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
PARAGBHAI POPATBHAI LOLADIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-9-1390] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMANBHAI MULABHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-2-637] [REFERRED TO]
GUMAN SINGH VS. GENERAL MANAGER/NETWORK-II/LOCAL HEAD OFFICE AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-6-53] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The Plaintiff is in appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court of punjab and Haryana in a second appeal. The plaintiff's services stood terminated and he filed the suit for declaring the order of termination null and void. The suit was dismissed. The lower appellate Court, however, on re-appreciation of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the order passed by the D. I. G. must be held to be illegal and consequently directed that the plaintiff should be reinstated in service. Having directed so, the first appellate court categorically held that the plaintiff will not be entitled to any arrears of salary for the period for which he has not served. The plaintiff assailed the appellate decree by filing a second appeal claiming that he would be entitled to the arrears of salary. The High Court by the impugned order not only confirmed the decree of the lower appellate court that the plaintiff will not be entitled to any arrears salary, but also further added that the plaintiff will not get his continuity of service. The plaintiff, therefore, is in appeal before this Court.
(3.)Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on examining the materials on record, we fail to understand how the continuity of service could be denied once the plaintiff is directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination. It is not a case of fresh appointment, but it is a case of reinstatement. That being the position, direction of the High Court that the plaintiff will not get continuity of service cannot be sustained and we set aside that part of the impugned order. So far as the arrears of salary is concerned, we see no infirmity with the direction which was given by the lower appellate court taking into account the facts and circumstances including the fact that the suit was filed after a considerable length of time. That part of the decree denying the arrears of salary stands affirmed and this appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated above. Appeal allowed partly.
(2.)The Plaintiff is in appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court of punjab and Haryana in a second appeal. The plaintiff's services stood terminated and he filed the suit for declaring the order of termination null and void. The suit was dismissed. The lower appellate Court, however, on re-appreciation of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the order passed by the D. I. G. must be held to be illegal and consequently directed that the plaintiff should be reinstated in service. Having directed so, the first appellate court categorically held that the plaintiff will not be entitled to any arrears of salary for the period for which he has not served. The plaintiff assailed the appellate decree by filing a second appeal claiming that he would be entitled to the arrears of salary. The High Court by the impugned order not only confirmed the decree of the lower appellate court that the plaintiff will not be entitled to any arrears salary, but also further added that the plaintiff will not get his continuity of service. The plaintiff, therefore, is in appeal before this Court.
(3.)Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on examining the materials on record, we fail to understand how the continuity of service could be denied once the plaintiff is directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination. It is not a case of fresh appointment, but it is a case of reinstatement. That being the position, direction of the High Court that the plaintiff will not get continuity of service cannot be sustained and we set aside that part of the impugned order. So far as the arrears of salary is concerned, we see no infirmity with the direction which was given by the lower appellate court taking into account the facts and circumstances including the fact that the suit was filed after a considerable length of time. That part of the decree denying the arrears of salary stands affirmed and this appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated above. Appeal allowed partly.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.