The State of Uttar Pradesh has been permitted to hold an enquiry to find out the officers in the Basic Education Department responsible for the situation which led to order of reinstatement with all consequential benefits, and to effect recovery of the entire amount from the officers found responsible. The respondent did not furnish a BTC Training Certificate but appears to have produced a B.Ed Certificate instead, on the basis of which she was not permitted to resume her duties in the year 1974.
She eventually filed a complaint before the State Information Commission, Uttar Pradesh, after the enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005, somewhere in the year 2009, and based on her complaint, the Commission passed an order dated 05.03.2009 directing the District Basic Education Officer, Rai-Bareily to communicate the decision to the respondent on her representations. Claiming that the communication dated 04.06.2009 amounted to denial of reinstatement to her, the respondent approached the State Public Services Tribunal (in short, the Tribunal’) on 03.06.2010 but her Claim Petition was dismissed on 11.06.2010 as being barred by limitation. The respondent again approached the High Court challenging the communication dated 05.04.2014 as well as the order of the Tribunal dated 13.12.2013. The Commission passed an Order on 05.03.2009 asking the appellant – authorities to communicate the decision on the representations of the respondent and it was in this backdrop that the communication dated 04.06.2009 was issued by the District Basic Education Officer, which according to the respondent revived her pending claim.
It was not a forum which either could declare the rights of the respondent or grant any service benefits. The next question which falls for consideration is whether a deemed order of termination of services or abandonment of employment could be challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal in the year 2010? The High Court nevertheless vide Order dated 6 02.07.2012 passed in the respondent’s Writ Petition set aside the Tribunal’s order. This Court upheld the finding of fact returned by the High Court which, upon consideration of the record regarding the payment of salary, transfer orders, joining reports and letter of authority asking her to present her testimonials etc., proceeded to hold that Sugna Devi was actually working as a Teacher.
Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/analysis-of-cheating-and-forgery-in-passport-case/
Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of 8 arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. Where an employee unauthorisedly absents himself and suddenly appears after 20 years and demands that he should be taken back and approaches the court, the department naturally will not or may not have any record relating to the employee at that distance of time. Many a time there is also no application of mind as to the extent of financial burden, as a result of a routine order for back wages.”
10 20.
No only this, the indulgence shown by a Court solely on equitable considerations, dehors the law, breeds indiscipline in public services and incorrigible employees start looking for a dividend on the period of their absence or for dereliction of duty. That order was nullified by the High Court vide impugned Judgment dated 02.07.2012.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/discrepancy-in-date-of-birth-courts-legal-analysis/
Taking into consideration the cumulative effects of all the 12 facts and circumstances, while we set aside the impugned Judgment dated 24.01.2017 of the High Court and reject the claim of the respondent for reinstatement, retiral benefits or arrears of pay etc., we direct the appellants to pay a lump-sum compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakh) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order to the respondent. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms.
Case Title: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RAJMATI SINGH (2022 INSC 1261)
Case Number: C.A. No.-009329-009329 / 2022
