In a groundbreaking ruling, the Supreme Court of India has issued a landmark judgment regarding the reinstatement of Shri Kajodia. This case marks a pivotal moment in the legal landscape, highlighting the importance of upholding justice and fairness. The decision reflects the dedication to ensuring that the rights of individuals, such as Shri Kajodia, are safeguarded in the pursuit of legal recourse.
Facts
- The petitioner, Shri Kajodia, did not join his posting in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kargil, leading to communication from the Assistant Commissioner citing provisional loss of lien under Article 81(d)(iii) of the KVS Educational Code.
- He was elected as the Assistant General Secretary (Hqs) during his tenure with KVS.
- Despite a show-cause notice and subsequent rejection of plea by the appellate authority, the petitioner was removed from KVS services on 21.07.2008.
- Several representations were made by the petitioner to seek redressal, including to high-ranking officials and ministers, without success.
- The CAT directed the HRD Secretary to dispose of the petitioner’s appeal through the President.
- The petitioner’s efforts led to exposure of irregularities involving defalcation with school funds.
- RTI queries were made by the petitioner, leading to information being provided after compliance with Central Information Commissioner’s order.
- Disputes regarding office bearer positions became subject to civil court proceedings at Tis Hazari, Delhi.
- The Union Minister of HRD disposed of the petitioner’s appeal on 23.09.2015, with a decision to reinstate him but treat the period of absence as ‘dies non’.
- Shri Kajodia was transferred to KV, Kargil which was not on vacation at the time of transfer orders.
- After availing joining time, Shri Kajodia should have joined the new place of posting.
- The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 07.07.2014 and imposed costs on KVS.
- The High Court rebuked KVS and granted time for compliance with directions.
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Claim for Loss of Profit in Delayed Contract
Arguments
- Petitioner relied on Rule 12(2) of Joining Time Rules regarding vacation periods in Kargil and Devas.
- Transfer order made during summer vacation, affecting petitioner’s joining time.
- Reinstatement would result in loss of 12 years of service and benefits.
- Petitioner is a self-represented litigant, court heard him and requested AG to examine case for possible relief.
- Non-joining of KVS Kargil within prescribed time not sufficient justification for removal or abandonment of services.
- ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT: The respondent argued that the removal order is not void and is in accordance with the rules.
- RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION: The respondent contended that the petitioner’s delay in approaching the Court after 9 years of the cause of action is unreasonable.
- VALIDITY OF REMOVAL ORDER: The respondent defended the validity of the removal order and claimed it was not contrary to the rules.
- TIME LAPSE IN SEEKING RELIEF: The respondent pointed out the significant time lapse of 9 years before the petitioner sought substantive reliefs under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Also Read: Public Declaration Requirement in Marriage under Hindu Marriage Act
Analysis
- The court found reemploying the petitioner at the same position as on 07.05.2008 to be excessively harsh due to the significant salary disparity.
- The court acknowledged the removal order as harsh but suggested a lighter penalty for the petitioner.
- The Minister rejected the petitioner’s mercy petition on 23.09.2015.
- In the interest of justice, the court proposed modifying the Central Government’s order.
- The Central Government clarified that the period of absence until rejoining would be treated as dies non with no benefits accruing.
- The petitioner’s delay in seeking redressal affected the court’s decision not to review the KVS’s removal order.
- Despite delays, the court considered the petitioner’s reemployment position based on notional increments from 2009 onwards, post joining KV Kargil.
- The Union Minister’s order confirmed reemploying the petitioner in the same post held at the time of removal.
- The order should expressly state that the benefit of arrears of salary will not accrue to the petitioner.
- The petitioner should be reinstated.
- The pay fixation order should ensure that the period of absence, which would typically be considered as dies non, is ignored for the purpose of fixation and fitment of salary only.
Also Read: OCI Cardholders’ Rights and Retroactive Notifications
Decision
- Central Government directed to reinstate the petitioner.
- An order to be issued specifying terms of reinstatement and place of posting.
- Three weeks granted to the petitioner to join the post.
- Pay fixation and fitment of salary order to be issued within four weeks.
- No disturbance to accrued benefits from initial recruitment date till 21.06.2008.
- Writ petition disposed off without costs.
Case Title: MANGILAL KAJODIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA (2020 INSC 22)
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.-000032 / 2020
