LexLT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS. versus CONST. DHARAMPAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~- _/ - LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS. v. CONST. DHARAMPAL AND ORS. MAY 4, 1990 [B.C. RAY AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.) Services: Delhi Police-Constables-Services terminated for participating in agitation-Reinstatement of-Payment of salary-- Treatment of period between termination and reinstatement-Directions issued. The respondents, who were working as Constables in Delhi Police and whose services were terminated for participating in an agitation, filed writ petitions before the High Court, praying for quashing the order of termination, and for reinstatement, deeming them to have been in service throughout, and awarding conseqnentlal benefits, Relying on the decision of the High Court, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, in the case of some Constables, whose services were similarly terminated, the Central Administrative Tribunal, to whom the cases were transferred, held that the respondents were entitled to be deemed to have been in service. DismiS5ing the appeals, by the Administration, this Court, HELD: All the respondents should be deemed to be in service. All of them, except respondent No. 24 who has expired and whose widow has already been paid back wages, should file affidavits, stating whether they had been gainfully employed or not during the period of A B c D E the termination of service and if so employed, they will state further in F the affidavits the period of such employment. The appellants may verify the same and will be at liberty to deduct the pay and allowances during the period of such gainful employment while determining the arrears of salary and allowances for the period of termination. However, for the purposes of seniority, promotion and retiral benefits, the entire period between termination and reinstatement shall be taken into account. l9SE-F J G CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3376- 3382 of 1988. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.1987 of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Delhi in T. Nos. 950, 961, 972. 986, 1049, H 93 A 94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 3 S.C.R. 1198 of 1985 and T. No. 383 of 1986. B.B. Barua, Aruneshwar Gupta and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellants. Juse P. Verghese, K.N. Rai and N.N Sharma for the B Respondents. c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, J, These appeals arose out of the judgment and order dated November 26, 1987 passed by the Central Administrative Tri- bunal, Principal Bench, Delhi directing that the petitioners (respon- dents in these appeals) will be entitled to the same relief as was gran- ted to the petitioners by Anand, J. in the \\lfit petitions CWP Nos. 278 of 1978 and 937 of 1978. The matrix of the case, in short, is that the services of the respon- D dents who were appointed as constables in 'Delhi Police in the years 1964-66 were terminated because of their participation in the agitation along with other police constables in April 1967. In view of the public controversy and in deference to the views expressed in Parliament, a large number of agitating constables were taken back in service as fresh entrants. Later, in view of the assurance given in the Parliament E by the then Home Minister, prosecutions were withdrawn and the dismissed constables were reinducted into service. Some of the dis- missed constables filed Civil Writ Petition Nos. 26/69 and 106/70 in the High Court of Delhi and the High Court by its judgment dated October 1, 1975 quashed the order of termination and the petitioners in that case were declared to be throughout in service. The Police F Administration preferred separate appeals being LP A Nos. 24 and 25 of 1976. Both these appeals were dismissed as barred by time and the judgment of the High Court dated October 1, 1975 became final. Subsequently, some other constables whose services were similarly terminated but were not reinstated in service even as fresh G entrants, filed writ petitions in the High Court of Delhi being CWP Nos. 270 and 937 of 1978. These writ petitions were heard by Anand, J. who rejected the contention raised by the respondents in the writ petitions regarding the delay and latches in moving the writ petitions, allowed the writ petitions quashing the impugned order of termination declaring that the petitioners will be deemed to have been in service Ii and would be treated as such subject to certain conditions. The Police .---( _/ LT. GOVERNOR v. DHARAMPAL [RAY, J.] 95 Administration filed LP A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.