Skip to content


Naba Kishore Pati (Dead) and After Him Smt. Menaka Pati and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService;Constitution
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberOriginal Jurisdiction Case No. 1307 of 1981
Judge
Reported in1985(II)OLR429
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226
AppellantNaba Kishore Pati (Dead) and After Him Smt. Menaka Pati and ors.
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi) and ors.
Appellant AdvocateS. Misra(1), S.K. Nayak, B.B. Panda, S.B. Misra, R. Saha, B. Dash and J.M. Mohanty
Respondent AdvocateStanding Counsel (Central)
DispositionApplication allowed
Cases ReferredK. C. Joshi v. Union of India and Ors. This Court
Excerpt:
- labour & services pay scale:[tarun chatterjee & r.m. lodha,jj] fixation - orissa service code (1939), rule 74(b) promotion - government servant, by virtue of rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - circular dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier circular dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion held, it is not legal. statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. - 4. it is now well-settled to admit of no controversy that an employee is entitled when the order of removal is set aside, to be paid his remuneration for the period during which he was unjustifiably kept out of employment.r.c. patnaik, j.1. this writ application was filed by late naba kishore pati seeking a mandamus to the opposite parties directing them to pay him his salary for the period from 27. 3.1976 to 21.2.1978 during which he was kept out of employment by reason of an order of termination which was quashed by this court in o. j.c. no. 295 of 1976. naba kishore passed away during the pendency of the writ application. his widow and children have been brought on the record in his place and they are prosecuting this case claiming the benefits which would have been available to naba kishore.2. naba kishore was serving as a telegraphist under the opposite parties. his service was terminated by an order dated 27. 3. 19 6. he approached this court for a certiorari and this court in o. j. c. no. 295 of.....
Judgment:

R.C. Patnaik, J.

1. This writ application was filed by late Naba Kishore Pati seeking a mandamus to the opposite parties directing them to pay him his salary for the period from 27. 3.1976 to 21.2.1978 during which he was kept out of employment by reason of an order of termination which was quashed by this Court in O. J.C. No. 295 of 1976. Naba Kishore passed away during the pendency of the writ application. His widow and children have been brought on the record in his place and they are prosecuting this case claiming the benefits which would have been available to Naba Kishore.

2. Naba Kishore was serving as a Telegraphist under the opposite parties. His service was terminated by an order dated 27. 3. 19 6. He approached this Court for a certiorari and this Court in O. J. C. No. 295 of 1976 by judgment dated 2. 9. 1977 quashed the order of termination and declared 'the petitioner shall be deemed to be an employee on temporary basis against a permanent vacancy as before and shall be entitled to all service advantages on that basis'. Naba Kishore was reinstated in service with effect from 21. 1. 1978. He has claimed his entitlements from the period during which he was kept out of service by the illegal order.

3. In the return submitted by the opposite parties an utterly unsupportable contention has been raised. Attempt has been made to justify the order which has already been quashed as invalid. They have stated that Naba Kishore was kept validly cut of service from 30. 3. 1976 to 20. 1.1978. This is not a correct attitude. When by decision in an earlier writ application this Court has already quashed that order, it is not open to the opposite parties to justify the termination. A private litigant unversed in law may raise such a contention. In our opinion, it is not open to the Union of India to raise such a wholly untenable contention.

4. It is now well-settled to admit of no controversy that an employee is entitled when the order of removal is set aside, to be paid his remuneration for the period during which he was unjustifiably kept out of employment. See 1985(3) S. C. C. 153 ; K. C. Joshi v. Union of India and Ors. This Court while quashing the order had declared that Naba Kishore would be entitled to all service advantages on that basis, namely, he should be entited to his remuneration for the period as if he was in service but had not been paid for the period. Accordingly there is no merit in the opposition. The writ application has to be allowed.

5. Though he lived for a few years after his reinstatement, Naba Kishore was not paid his dues. We would, therefore, while allowing writ application direct that the opposite parties should pay compensation of Rs. 500/- to the petitioners for withholding the dues of Naba Kishore. The arrears and the compensation be paid within two months hence. An appropriate mandamus shall issue. There would be no order as to costs of this writ application.

D.P. Mohapatra, J.

6. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //