Reinstatement-entitlement to back wages-Circular

¹§âA¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DqÀ½vÀ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ

¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉ

¸ÀASÉå: ¹D¸ÀÄE 22 ¸ÉÃE« 2001, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 5£Éà dįÉÊ 2002

«µÀAiÀÄ:	¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è Qæ«Ä£À¯ï DgÉÆÃ¥À¢AzÀ RįÁ¸ÉUÉÆAqÀ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÅ£ÀB ¸ÉêÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è CªÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀÄ.
G¯ÉèÃR:	¢£ÁAPÀ: 26.6.1996gÀ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯É ¸ÀASÉå: ¹D¸ÀÄE 9 ¸ÉÃE« 95.

 Qæ«Ä£À¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ M¼À¥ÀlÄÖ C¥ÀgÁzsÀPÁÌV zÀAqÀ£ÉUÉ UÀÄjAiÀiÁzÀgÉ, DvÀ£ÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ ªÉÄîä£À« EvÀåxÀðªÁUÀĪÀªÀgÉUÀÆ PÁAiÀÄzÉ DvÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¹«¯ï ¸ÉêÁ (ªÀVðÃPÀgÀt, ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄîä£À«) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, 1957gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 14(i)gÀ£ÀĸÁgÀ ²¹Û£À PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÉÝAzÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É G¯ÉèÃT¹zÀ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉAiÀÄ°è w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

 2. ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀjzÀÄ, EzÉà ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉAiÀÄ PÀArPÉ 3gÀ°è, MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É D¥Á¢vÀ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀ£ÀÄ ªÉÄð£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è RįÁ¸ÉAiÀiÁzÀgÉ ²¸ÀÄÛ ¥Áæ¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjµÀÌj¹, ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÅ£ÀB ¸ÉêÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ°è, DvÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀj¢zÀÝgÉ CºÀð£ÁVgÀÄwÛzÀÝAvÀºÀ J®è ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ½UÀÆ ºÀPÀÄ̼ÀîªÀ£ÁUÀÄvÁÛ£É JAzÀÄ w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

 3. ¸ÀªÉÇðãÀßvÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁAiÀÄ®ªÀÅ J¸ïJ¯ïDgï 1997(1) (¸ÉàµÀ¯ï °Ãªï ¦nµÀ£ï (¹) ¸ÀASÉå: 22538:1996 (Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore Vs The Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and Anr.) 1997(1) SLR 14)  ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 28.10.1996 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ wæð£À ¸ÀĸÀA§zÀÞ ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß F PɼÀUÉ GzÀÞj¹zÉ:

  "3. The reinstatement of the petitioner into the service has already been ordered by the High Court.  The only question is whether he is entitled to back wages?  It was his conduct of involving himself in the crime that was taken into account for his not being in services of the respondent.  Consequent upon his acquittal, he is entitled to reinstatement for the reason that his service was terminated on the basis of the conviction by operation of proviso to the statutory rules applicable to the situation.  The question of back wages would be considered only if the respondents have taken action by way of disciplinary proceedings and the action was found to be unsustainable in law and he was unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties.  In that context, his conduct becomes relevant.  Each case requires to be considered in his own backdrops.  In this case, since the petitioner had involved himself in a crime, though he was later acquitted, he had disabled himself from rendering the service on account of conviction and incarceration in jail.  Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of backwages.  The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have not committed any error of law warranting interference.

  The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed."

 4. ¸ÀªÉÇðÃZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wæð£À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è G¯ÉèÃRzÀ°è£À ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉAiÀÄ PÀArPÉ 3gÀ ``DvÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀj¢zÀÝgÉ CºÀð£ÁVgÀÄwÛzÀÝAvÀºÀ J®è ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ½UÀÆ ºÀPÀÄ̼ÀîªÀ£ÁUÀÄvÁÛ£É'' JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁV ªÀiÁ¥Àðr¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ¥Àj²Ã°¹, CzÀgÀ §zÀ®Ä PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ªÀÄgÀÄ ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÉ:

 ``MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É M§â ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀ£À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÅ£ÀB ¸ÉêÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ°è, ªÀeÁ DzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄvÉÛ ¸ÉêÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀªÀgÉUÉ ¨ÁQ ªÉÃvÀ£À, ªÉÃvÀ£À §rÛ, ¸ÉêÉ, ¦AZÀtÂ, EvÁå¢ ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ½UÉ CªÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÀéAiÀÄAZÁ°vÀªÁV (automatically) CºÀð£ÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è.  ¸ÀªÉÇðÃZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, CzÀgÀ, ªÉÄÃ¯É GzÀÞj¹zÀ wæð£À°è ¸ÀÆa¹zÀAvÉ, ¥ÀæwAiÉÆAzÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀð ºÁUÀÆ ªÁ¸ÀÛªÁA±ÀUÀ¼À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¨ÁQ ªÉÃvÀ£À EvÁå¢ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CªÀ£ÀÄ CºÀð£Éà CxÀªÁ E®èªÉÃ?  J£ÀÄߪÀ §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ wêÀiÁð¤¸À¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.  GzÁºÀgÀuÉUÉ, ¸ÀªÉÇðÃZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, CzÀgÀ, ªÉÄÃ¯É GzÀÞj¹zÀ wæð£À°è G¯ÉèÃT¹zÀAvÀºÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è, CAvÀºÀ ¸Ë®¨sÀå ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CºÀðjgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.''

 5. DzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ J¯Áè ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E¯ÁSÁ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Á°¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ ¥Á®£ÉUÁV CzÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä C¢üãÀzÀ°è §gÀĪÀ J¯Áè £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²¸ÀÄÛ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼À UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀ®Ä PÉÆÃjzÉ.

¦.Dgï. 931

PÉ.J¯ï. dAiÀÄgÁªÀiï ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üãÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðŠ2, ¹§âA¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DqÀ½vÀ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ E¯ÁSÉ, (¸ÉêÁ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ)