VINOD RAVJIBHAI RAJPUT versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 664 · Decided: 14-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
664
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
VINOD RAVJIBHAI RAJPUT
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1601 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 14, 2020
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Service Law: Fresh appointment – Appellant was appointed
part time Gallery Attendant in 1995 and in 2002 was appointed as
a full time Gallery Attendant against a sanctioned post – He served
as a full time Gallery Attendant for almost 2 years after which his
services were abruptly termination on 1.7.2004 on the ground that
his appointment as a full time Gallery Attendant was against the
policy of the State Government of not making any fresh recruitment
due to financial constraints – Appellant filed writ petition in High
Court – Single judge passed interim order restraining respondent
authorities from terminating the services of the appellant subject to
result of pending writ petition and clarified that the appellant could
if necessary be reverted as a part time employee – Pursuant thereto,
respondent authorities reverted the appellant to the position of part
time employee – Appellant made representations and thereafter
aggrieved by inaction of concerned authorities to act on his
representations, filed writ petition which were disposed of by
directing the appellant to make representation to the concerned
authorities and directing authorities to decide his representation –
On 18.12.2012, his services were terminated on the ground that it
was impermissible to regularise him to the post of Gallery Attendant
as he had not fulfilled certain conditions prescribed in Government
Resolution dtd. 1.5.2007 – Appellant filed writ petition which was
dismissed observing that the appropriate remedy of appellant was
to initiate proceedings in accordance with 1947 Act – Division Bench
allowed LPA no.635 of 2013 filed by appellant and directed
respondents to reinstate the appellant to the post of full time attendant
– However since appellant had not worked since 18.12.2012, he
was not granted back wages – Thereafter, he was duly appointed
and he resumed his duties on 14.12.2013 – Appellant filed writ
petition questioning the action of authorities in not granting the
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 664
664
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
665
appellant the benefit of continuty of service from 25.07.2002 – Single
judge allowed the writ petition holding that reinstatement includes
continuity of service – LPA – Division Bench set aside order of
single judge – In the instant appeal, the question for consideration
was whether the action of the Respondents in granting fresh
appointment to the Appellant with effect from 14.10.2013, in violation
of the judgment dated 22.08.2013 of the Division Bench in LPA No.
635 of 2013 directing the Respondents to reinstate him, is sustainable
in law – Held: When the earlier Division bench clearly directed
reinstatement of the Appellant, but without back wages and the said
judgment has assumed finality and is binding on the Respondents,
it was not open to the concerned authorities to give fresh
appointment to the Appellant with effect from 14.10.2013 – Appellant
has to be reinstated with continuity of service from the date of his
initial appointment as full-time Gallery Attendant in July 2002, but
without back wages for the period between 18.12.2012 to
22.08.2013, when the Appellant did not work – Appellant shall,
however, be entitled to differential salary, if any, between the post
of full-time Gallery Attendant and part-time Gallery Attendant from
25.07.2002 onwards, but not for the period between 18.12.2012 to
22.08.2013, in view of the judgment and order of the Division Bench
dated 22.08.2013 in LPA No. 635 of 2013 – Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. By the judgment and order of 22nd August 2013
in Letters Patent Appeal No. 635 of 2013, the earlier Division
bench had clearly directed reinstatement of the Appellant, but
without back wages.  The said judgment and order has assumed
finality and is binding on the Respondents. It was not open to the
concerned authorities to give fresh appointment to the Appellant
with effect from 14th October 2013. The Single Bench very rightly
allowed the writ petition. However, the only error that the Single
Bench made, was in directing reinstatement of the Appellant with
consequential benefits, without clarifying that the reinstatement
would be with consequential benefits except back wages for the
period from 18.12.2012 to 22.08.2013 when the Appellant had
not worked. The Di

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.