THE STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR) Vs. KAILASH CHAND GUPTA SON OF SHRI KANHIYA LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant intra-court appeal is directed against order of the ld.Single Judge dated 10.12017. This court can take judicial notice of this fact that prime time of the respondent-workman has been consumed through out in litigation.

(2.) The factual backdrop of the matter which may be relevant for the purpose and manifest from the record are that the respondent workman joined service as. Clerk in temporary capacity in the appellant-Bank on 18.09.1972 and worked up to 10.07.1973 and that was unfortunate event happened with him that his services stood illegally terminated by the appellant-Bank on 10.07.1973 which came to be assailed by him through raising industrial dispute. Finally, the award came to be passed on 28.01987 granting him wages for six months and that came to be challenged by the respondent-workman in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1386/2007 decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 24.11.1988 holding that the termination of respondent-workman was bad in law and he deserves reinstatement in service which he was holding before termination of his service but it reveals from record that he had served in the intervening period to the erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board and taking that fact into consideration, the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the writ petition further observed that he will be entitled for back wages only for the period w.e.f. 11.07.1973 to 28.11973 which appears to be the period during which he remain unemployed.

(3.) In compliance of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.11.1988, the respondent-workman was reinstated in service vide order dated 22.12.1988 and was fixed in the regular pay-scale and increments were also released to him from the date of initial appointment but in the same order, the employer put condition that it shall be treated as fresh appointment and such condition in Clause (2) read with Clause (4) of the order dated 22.12.1988 is self contradictory i.e. if person has been reinstated in service with release of increments from the date of initial appointment certainly it cannot be treated as fresh appointment more particularly in the given circumstances when the benefit of continuity in service has been extended to him on reinstatement into service pursuant to the order dated 22.12.1988.