K. Kannan, J. - (1.) IN the writ petition No. 14612 of 1989, four Petitioners have joined together challenging the order of termination of service through the impugned order. It appears that when the writ petition was admitted, a Bench of this Court passed an order on 10.01.1990 holding that the termination of service of Petitioners 2 and 4 namely, Shashi Bala and Sushila was prima facie bad, for, the justification given by the Respondent that the post had been abolished could not be accepted. The reasoning was that both of them were seniors to two persons namely, Dharamvir and Virender Singh, who had been retained. The Bench directed that if at all, the bank could terminate only the services of Dharamvir and Virender Singh. It appears that Dharamvir, who was aggrieved by this direction of the Division Bench, had challenged the Division Bench's order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3457 of 1990. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the directions of the High Court only in so far as it related to Dharamvir. Shashi Bala and Sushila appeared to have taken back in service pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench on 10.01.1990. They appear to have continued in service.
(2.) IN terms of the directions already given and the fact that the Bench had already observed that their services could not have been terminated for the purported reason of abolition of posts, it should be, therefore, taken that both of them are entitled to treat their service from the time of their initial engagement and not merely from the order directing the reinstatement subsequent to the order passed by the Division Bench on 10.01.1990. Petitioners 2 and 4 shall, therefore, be entitled to all the reliefs consequent on the treatment that their service must be counted from the respective dates of the first engagement. This direction becomes essential in view of the changed circumstances that after the writ petition challenging the order of termination, a Division Bench had directed their immediate reinstatement and the Respondent had also given effect to the order dated 10.01.1990. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that the first Petitioner Sunita has died and nothing survives. The third Petitioner Shamsher Singh appears to have submitted voluntary resignation and has gone out of service. The writ petition is allowed for Petitioners 2 and 4 but with modified reliefs as stated above, instead of a direction for reinstatement since it was a fait accompli during the proceedings.;