- (1.) The appellant, a Constable of the Provincial Armed Constabulary, was terminated from service on 8th of July, 1973 after giving him one month's notice. The appellant had been terminated in the background that he had participated in the PAC revolt which had occurred in the year 1973. A large number of such Constables who were similarly situate, had approached this Court and certain directions were issued by the High Court to decide their representations and some writ petitions were also disposed of with a direction to reinstate such terminated employees. The Constables fell into two categories, one who were permanent in service and the others who were treated to be temporary and their services had been dispensed with after giving one month's notice. The matter had been engaging the attention of the State Government pursuant to the aforesaid litigation, which was being contested and ultimately the State Government on its own issued a Government Order on 7th September 1998 for reinstatement. This policy decision was followed by another clarification on 13th November, 1998 extending the benefit to permanent as well as temporary Constables, whose services had been dispensed with after giving one month's notice.
(2.) This policy decision led to a spate of writ petitions being filed before this Court. In some matters, the writ petitions were allowed and the termination orders were quashed, against which the State went up in Special Appeal. A bunch of these matters came to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the State of U.P. and Others v. Gajadhar Pandey, 2003 1 ESC 221. The Special Leave Petition filed against the said decision has also been dismissed by the Apex Court. In the said decision, the State Government had taken a stand that these Police Constables had approached the Court after a lapse of more than 24 years, and therefore, this Court should decline to exercise discretion on the ground of laches. The aforesaid contention of the State was rejected by the Division Bench which is as follows: 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the services of the respondent - writ petitioners were terminated in the year 1973 by giving one month's pay in lieu of notice. They had approached this Court for the first time in the year 1997. All those police constables whose names were mentioned in the FIR and whose services were terminated on account of taking part in the PAC revolt after their acquittal were reinstated in service on account of the decision taken by the Government in the year 1996-97. These respondent - writ petitioners immediately thereafter approached this Court. In the first instance this Court directed the respondent - writ petitioners to make a representation before the concerned authorities. The representations were rejected and thereafter they had approached this Court by filing writ petitions giving rise to the present special appeals. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent - writ petitioners are guilty of laches. It is to be remembered that our State is a welfare State. If the services of those constables, who took part in PAC revolt and indulged in criminal activities can be reinstated by the State Government without their termination order having been set aside on account of a policy decision, the cases of the respondent - writ petitioners, who did not indulge in any criminal activity and whose services were terminated by giving one month's pay in lieu of notice stood in a better footing. The State ought to have reinstated such persons also. Thus, we are of the view that the State has acted arbitrarily in not reinstating them while reinstating other set of persons whose services were terminated in specific charge, the cause being common i.e. PAC revolt, and they had to approach this Court. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent - writ petitioners were guilty of laches, The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel would not be applicable in the peculiar facts of this case, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the special leave petition in respect of similarly situate employees, namely, Chhavi Nath Singh and Narottam Singh Tomar, who had filed the claim petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal where the order of discharge was simpliciter like the present one.
(3.) The appeals filed by the State were dismissed and as noted above, the said judgment has been affirmed by the Apex Court.;