Governor of Delhi & Ors Vs. Const. Dharampal & Ors  INSC 192 (4 May 1990)
B.C. (J) Ray, B.C. (J) Kasliwal,
1990 AIR 2059 1990 SCR (3) 93 1990 SCC (4) 13 JT 1990 (2) 432 1990 SCALE (1)138
INFO : R 1992 SC1414 (1,3,5,7,8)
Delhi police--Constables--Services terminat-
ed for participating in agitation--Reinstatement of--Payment of
salary-Treatment of period between termination and rein- statement--Directions
respondents, who were working as Constables in Delhi Police and whose services
were terminated for participating in an agitation, filed writ petitions before
the High Court, praying for quashing the order of termination, and for
reinstatement, deeming them to have been in service through- out, and awarding
consequential benefits. Relying on the decision of the High Court, as affirmed
by the Supreme Court, in the case of some Constables, whose services were
similarly terminated, the Central Administrative Tribunal, to whom the cases
were transferred, held that the respond- ents were entitled to be deemed to
have been in service.
the appeals, by the Administration, this Court,
All the respondents should be deemed to be in service. All of them, except
respondent No. 24 who has expired and whose widow has already been paid back
wages, should file affidavits, stating whether they had been gain- fully
employed or not during the period of the termination of service and if so
employed, they will state further in the affidavits the period of such
employment. The appellants may verify the same and will be at liberty to deduct
the pay and allowances during the period of such gainful employment while
determining the arrears of salary and allowances for the period of termination.
However, for the purposes of seniority, promotion and retiral benefits, the
entire period between termination and reinstatement shall be taken into
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 33763382 of 1988.
the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.1987 of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Delhi in T. Nos. 950, 961, 972, 986,
1049, 94 1198 of 1985 and T. No. 383 of 1986.
Aruneshwar Gupta and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellants.
P. Verghese, K.N. Rai and N.N Sharma for the Re- spondents.
Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY. J. These appeals arose out of the
judgment and order dated November 26, 1987 passed by the Central Adminis- trative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi directing that the petitioners (respondents in
these appeals) will be entitled to the same relief as was granted to the
petitioners by Anand, J. in the writ petitions CWP Nos. 278 of 1978 and 937 of
matrix of the case, in short, is that the services of the respondents who were
appointed as constables in Delhi Police in the years 1964-66 were terminated
because of their participation in the agitation along with other police
constables in April 1967. In view of the public controversy and in deference to
the views expressed in Parliament, a large number of agitating constables were
taken back in service as fresh entrants. Later, in view of the assurance given
in the Parliament by the then Home Minister, prosecu- tions were withdrawn and
the dismissed constables were reinducted into service. Some of the dismissed
constables filed Civil Writ Petition Nos. 26/69 and 106/70 in the High Court of
Delhi and the High Court by its judgment dated October 1, 1975 quashed the
order of termination and the petitioners in that case were declared to be
throughout in service. The Police Administration preferred separate ap- peals
being LPA Nos. 24 and 25 of 1976. Both these appeals were dismissed as barred
by time and the judgment of the High Court dated October 1, 1975 became final.
some other constables whose services were similarly terminated but were not
reinstated in service even as fresh entrants, filed writ petitions in the High
Court of Delhi being CWP Nos. 270 and 937 of 1978. These writ peti- tions were
heard by Anand, J. who rejected the contention raised by the respondents in the
writ petitions regarding the delay and latches in moving the writ petitions,
allowed the writ petitions quashing the impugned order of termina- tion
declaring that the petitioners will be deemed to have been in service and would
be treated as such subject to certain conditions. The Police 95 Administration
filed LPA against this judgment which was dismissed on August 29, 1983. Thereafter the respondents herein
filed the writ petitions in the High Court against the order of termination of
their services praying for quashing of the orders of termination and for
reinstating them in service with effect from the respective dates of their
termination of services and to treat them as being in service throughout and to
award them all consequential benefits. These writ petitions were subsequently
transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi. The Tribunal while rejecting the
plea of the respondents that the peti- tioners should be denied any relief
because of delay and latches held that the claims of the petitioners
(respondents in these appeals) was identical to the claim of the peti- tioners
in CWP Nos. 270 and 937 of 1978 whose petitions were allowed by the High Court
of Delhi. The Tribunal further held that the petitioners were entitled to the
same relief as was granted to the petitioners by Anand, J. in C W P Nos. 270
and 937 of 1978.
this judgment and order the instant appeals on leave have been filed before
heard learned counsel for the parties. Consider- ing facts and circumstances as
well as the judgment rendered by Anand J. in CWP Nos. 270 and 937 of 1978, we
dismiss the appeals and confirm the judgment and order dated November 26, 1987
of the Tribunal with the modification that the respondents, excepting
respondent No. 24, Kanwal Singh who is dead, will file affidavits stating
whether they had been gainfully employed or not during the period of the termina-
tion of service and if so employed, they will state further in the affidavits
the period of such employment. The appel- lants may verify the same and will be
at liberty to deduct the pay and allowances during the period such gainful em- ployment
while determining the arrears of salary and allow- ances for the period of
termination. We, however, make it clear that for the purposes of seniority,
promotion and retiral benefits, the entire period between termination and
reinstatement shall be taken into account.
been stated by the learned counsel for the appel- lants that all the
respondents have already been reinstated in service and they are now working.
The respondent No. 24, however, has expired and the back wages have already
been paid to his widow. In the facts circumstances of the case there will be no
order as to costs.
Appeals dis- missed.