THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, I.C.M.R. versus DR. D.K. JAIN AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 893 · Decided: 09-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, I.C.M.R. 
A 
v. 
DR. D.K. JAIN AND ANR. 
MARCH 9, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Pensionary and retiral benefits-Computation of period of service-
Period during which employee remained in employment of another C 
organization-Employee's services terminated-While reinstating the 
employee he was given his original seniority from his initial appointment, 
but was refused back wages for the period he worked in another 
organizatiorr-Entitlement to computation of the said period for purposes of 
pensionary and other retiral benefits-Held, on facts, having regard to conduct D 
-y 
of parties, what was denied to employee was only back wages for the period 
he was in service of some. other organization, which cannot be construed to 
mean that the employee although being validly appointed and continued in 
service would be deprived of the pensionary benefits during the period in 
question. 
Respondent no. I joined the services of the appellant on 14.5.1971. His 
services were terminated on 10.4.1974. This was challenged by him in a writ 
petition before the High Court. Meanwhile he joined another organization 
E 
on 25.1.1975. Before the High Court the appellant offered a regular post to 
respondent no .. 1 maintaining the seniority originally assigned to him, but F 
without back wages. Respondent no. I accepted the offer. The High Court 
aceordingly disposed of the writ petition. However, the period during ,which 
respondent no. I remained in employment of the other organization was kept 
out of consideration for purpose of computing pensionary and other retiral 
benefits. The writ petition of respondent no. I having been allowed by the 
High Court holding that during the period in question he would be deemed to G 
be in service, the employer filed the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Having regard to the conduct of the parties which is significant H 
893 
894 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S. C.R. 
. A for the purpose of determining the issue involved, for all intent and purport, 
respondent no. I has to be treated to be continuing in service despite small 
disruption. The very fact that the offer made in favour of the respondent by 
the appellant was for reinstatement in service; it is beyond any cavil of doubt, 
the same would amount to continuity of his service. Moreover, the respondent 
B has·been given his due seniority from the date of his initial appointment. What 
was denied to him was only the back wages for the period he was in service in 
some other organization, which cannot be construed to mean that the employee 
although being validly appointed and continued in service shall be deprived of 
the pensionary benefits during the period in question. 
c 
[Paras 13-1411898-8, C, El 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1377 of2007. 
From the Order dated 26.4.2006 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi 
inC.W.P. No. 701812001 
D 
Raju Ramachandran, Y.K. Rao, Madhu Sikri, and Saket Sikri for the 
Appellant. 
+ 
Dr. M.P. Raju, Ashwani Bhardwaj, Dr. D.K. Jain for the Respondents. 
"f"" 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Learned counsel for both the parties acept that the 
Union of India is not a necessary party in this case. It is hence directed to 
be expunged accordingly. 
2. Leave granted. 
F 
3. Respondent No. 1 herein joined the services of the appellant as a 
Statistical Officer on 14.5.1971. He completed his period of probation. However, 
--1 
G 
H 
on or about 10.4.1974 his services were terminated. He questioned the order 
of his tennination by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi which 
was marked as CWP No. 545/1974. Indisputably he joined Bombay Cancer 
Registry on or about 25.1.1975. 
4. The writ petition filed by the respondent herein came up for 
consideration before the High Court some time in 1983. During pendency of 
the said writ petition. The appellant herein placed before the said Court an 
offer so that respondent No. 1 may be reinstated in service on the following 
terms: 
. _. 
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, l.C.M.R. v. DR. D.K. JAIN [S.B. SINHA, J.] 895 
"Having regard to the facts summed up in para I avobe and the A 
issues discussed in para 2. Director General of ICMR is of the 
considered view that Shri Jain can at best be offered a regular post 
of Sr. Research Officer, which he had been holding before his service 
were tenninated. He may be given his seniority in the gra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.