Page 1

Non-Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.3350   of   2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.31965 of 2015)

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, NANGAL & ORS.

.... Appellant(s) Versus

ARUNA SAINI

….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.

The Suit filed by the Respondent seeking a direction to

the Appellants to reinstate her as Social Studies Teacher in

Shivalik NAC High School, Naya Nangal was decreed which

was modified in the First Appeal filed by the Appellants.  The

First Appellate Court held that the Respondent only had a

right to be considered for appointment and was not entitled

for a direction of reinstatement.   The High Court reversed

the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restored the

judgment and decree of the Trial Court.   The said judgment

of the High Court is in challenge before us.      

1

Page 2

2. The Respondent was appointed as a temporary Social

Studies Teacher on 20.07.1994 against a leave vacancy.  The

vacancy arose due to the non-joining of Smt. Raj Verma who

availed  leave  from 15.07.1993  to  17.07.1993  and  did  not

report later.   By an order dated 03.12.1994, the Executive

Officer-cum-Member  Secretary,  Shivalik  NAC  High  School,

Naya Nangal dismissed Smt. Raj Verma w.e.f. 15.11.1994 for

her  unauthorised  absence.   Vide  Resolution  No.3  dated

15.11.1994  the  Respondent  was  appointed  as  a  Social

Studies Teacher on a permanent basis in the post that fell

vacant due to the termination of services of Smt. Raj Verma.

One of the conditions of the appointment of the Respondent

was that she will not be entitled to claim any right if Smt. Raj

Verma succeeded in the case filed by her.  Smt. Raj Verma

was reinstated on 14.07.2003 in view of the decision of the

Court in her favour.  On 15.07.2003, the Executive Officer of

the  Municipal  Council,  Nangal  relieved the  Respondent  on

the ground that her services were no longer required in view

of the reinstatement of Smt. Raj Verma.

3. The Respondent approached the High Court by filing a

Writ Petition challenging the termination of her services and

withdrew  the  same  with  liberty  to  approach  the  Labour

2

Page 3

Court.   She later filed an application for modification of the

order with liberty to file a Civil  Suit.  The said application

was allowed by the High Court on 03.09.2004.

4. Pursuant  to  the  liberty  given by  the  High Court,  the

Respondent  filed  a  Civil  Suit  for  mandatory  injunction

directing the Appellants herein to reinstate her as a  Social

Studies  Teacher  in  the  Shivalik  NAC  High  School,  Naya

Nangal  by declaring the order dated 15.07.2003 as illegal,

unlawful, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural

justice.  The Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rupnagar,

Nangal by a judgment and decree dated 16.11.2004 directed

the Appellants herein to reinstate the Respondent as Social

Studies Teacher w.e.f. 01.09.2004.  The Trial Court also held

that  the Respondent was entitled for  all  the consequential

benefits attached to the post of Social Studies Teacher w.e.f.

01.09.2004.  It  was further held that the Respondent was

entitled for all the dues from 01.09.2004 with interest at the

rate of nine per cent per annum.  The Civil Court held that

the order of  termination dated 15.07.2003 was violative of

principles  of  natural  justice.   Taking note  of  the  fact  that

Smt.  Raj  Verma attained superannuation and retired from

service on 31.08.2004 and that the Respondent worked as a

3

Page 4

regular  employee  for  a  period  of  9  years,  the  Trial  Court

directed reinstatement of the Respondent w.e.f. 01.09.2004.

5. The  decree  and  judgment  of  the  Trial  Court  was

modified in favour of  the Appellants by the First Appellate

Court.   It was held that the Respondent only had a right of

being considered for appointment to the post as and when it

fell vacant.   The Respondent approached the High Court by

filing a Regular Second Appeal assailing the judgment of the

First Appellate Court.  The High Court restored the judgment

of the Trial Court and set aside the judgment of the Lower

Appellate Court.  The High Court held that the Respondent

worked for a period of 9 years as a regular teacher.  She was

granted annual increments and there were deductions from

her salary towards provident fund.  The High Court held that

the Appellants ought to have adjusted the Respondent in an

available  vacancy  taking  into  account  the  long  period  of

service rendered by her on a regular basis.   The High Court

found fault with the judgment of the First Appellate Court by

holding  that  fresh  consideration  of  the  case  of  the

Respondent would only lead to multiplication of the litigation.

The High Court was informed that the Respondent had two

more years of service left and in view of the hardship suffered

4

Page 5

by the Respondent due to her termination, the High Court

held that the Trial Court was right in directing reinstatement

with consequential benefits.

6. After  going  through  the  material  on  record  and

considering the submissions made by the parties, we are of

the opinion that the judgment of  the High Court does not

warrant interference.  The termination of the services of the

Respondent  is  in  clear  violation  of  principles  of  natural

justice  as  reasonable  opportunity  was  not  given  to  the

Respondent to furnish her explanation. Admittedly, notice of

a  mere  24 hours  was given to  the  Respondent  before  the

order of termination was passed.   Undoubtedly, the regular

appointment of the Respondent was on a condition that she

would  make  way  for  Smt.  Raj  Verma in  the  event  of  her

succeeding in the pending case.  The fact remains that the

Respondent worked on regular basis for a period of 9 years

before  the  termination  of  her  services.   Thereafter,  the

Respondent  made  a  representation  to  the  Appellants  to

appoint  her  in  the  vacancy  that  had  arisen  due  to  the

superannuation of Smt. Raj Verma on 31.08.2004.  However,

the Appellants did not consider such request made by the

Respondent.  If the termination is bad in law, the Respondent

5

Page 6

in  the  normal  course,  would  be  entitled  for  reinstatement

from the date of termination with all consequential benefits

as  the  termination  order  is  illegal.   But,  in  view  of  the

condition  of  the  appointment  of  the  Respondent  on

20.07.1994, the Trial  Court held that the Respondent was

entitled for reinstatement only w.e.f. 01.09.2004 i.e. after the

superannuation of the incumbent Smt. Raj Verma.

7. The notice issued by this Court in the present case was

limited  only  for  the  payment  of  arrears.   Counsel  for  the

Appellants submitted that the Respondent is not entitled for

payment of salary and other allowances for the period of 10

years during which she did not work and we find force in the

said submission.  In the facts and circumstances of this case,

we  modify  the  decree  and judgment  of  the  Trial  Court  as

follows:

a) The Respondent is entitled for reinstatement

w.e.f. 01.09.2004.  She would be entitled to

fifty  per  cent  of  the  back  wages  between

01.09.2004  and  the  date  of  her

reinstatement.  b) The  Respondent  is  entitled  for  salary  and

other  allowances  from  the  date  of  her

reinstatement  till  the  date  of  her

superannuation.  

6

Page 7

c) The Respondent will be entitled to count the

service from 2004 onwards for the purpose of

computation of her pension, if any payable.   

8. With  the  aforesaid  modification  of  the  decree  and

judgment of the Trial Court, the Appeal is disposed of.  No

costs.  

       ........................................J         [S. A. BOBDE]

               ....……................................J                                            [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

New Delhi, February  28, 2017

7

Page 88