10 July 2017
Supreme Court
Download

NAGAR NIGAM KANPUR NAGAR Vs BRIJBALA TEWARI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH, HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
Judgment by: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
Case number: C.A. No.-008754-008754 / 2017
Diary number: 8245 / 2014
Advocates: PRADEEP MISRA Vs


1

1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8754 OF 2017

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 12852 OF 2014

NAGAR NIGAM, KANPUR NAGAR  & ORS.           Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS

DR. (SMT.) BRIJBALA TEWARI  & ANR.          Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This is a case where the first respondent was terminated  from  service  in  the  year  1997  after  a regular service of around 10 years and adhoc service of around 14 years.

3. The termination was held to be bad for want of consultation with the Public Service Commission, as mandated under the service rules.  Though the learned counsel  appearing  for  the  appellants  has  made  a persuasive attempt that the issue is covered in their favour,  we  are  afraid,  the  contention  cannot  be appreciated for the reason that this is a case where the service rules have specifically provided for a mandatory  consultation.   Admittedly,  that

2

2

consultation has not taken place.  Therefore, all the decisions canvassed by the learned counsel may not be of any avail in the facts of the present case.

4. The High Court has upheld the order passed by the Administrative  Tribunal  dated  01.04.2011.   The operative portion of the order reads as follows :-

“In view of the observations made above, the  Claim  Petition  is  allowed.   The impugned order of punishment of dismissal from  service  dated  07.02.1997  contained as Annexure No. 1 to the Claim Petition, is  hereby  set  aside  with  all consequential  service  benefits  except back wages for which the department is at liberty  to  take  decision  as  per  rules. Since the Petitioner has attained the age of  superannuation  on  31.08.2004, therefore, as a result of setting aside of the impugned order of punishment, the Petitioner would also be entitled for the retiral benefits as per rules.”  

5. In the peculiar facts of the case, we make it clear that Respondent No. 1 shall be entitled only to the retiral benefits in terms of the rules, treating her service from the date of termination to the date of superannuation as notional.  In other words, that period  will  be  counted  only  for  the  purpose  of pension and pensionary benefits.  There will not be

3

3

any  actual  backwages  for  the  said  period.   The benefits, as above, shall be computed and disbursed within a period of three months from today.

6. With the above observations and directions, this appeal is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.        

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ R. BANUMATHI ]  

New Delhi; July 10, 2017.