UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRAMILA P KORGAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri M. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri G. Vijaychandran, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) Shri M. Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order on two counts. The first contention of the learned Counsel is that respondent was not qualified to be appointed for the original post as according to him the post was reserved for Schedule Tribe whereas the respondent belonged to the Backward Tribe. The learned Counsel further pointed out that as the respondent has misrepresented the facts to the petitioners that she was qualified to be appointed to the post on the basis that she belonged to a Backward Tribe itself disentitles her from holding such post. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate and the Revisional Authorities have considered the contentions of the respondent and have come to the conclusion that in view of such misrepresentation and took note of the fact that she was not qualified to be appointed to the concerned post of Stenographer Grade III. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Tribunal has erroneously come to the conclusion that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the respondent and set aside the orders passed by the Disciplinary, Appellate and Revisional Authorities. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that on this count alone the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned Counsel further pointed out that whilst passing the impugned judgment the Tribunal has directed payment of full back wages and consequential benefits in favour of the respondent. The learned Counsel has taken me through the original claim put forward by the respondent and pointed out that there was no averment therein that respondent was not gainfully employed during the period of her suspension/dismissal to the date of reinstatement. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that considering that such averment is found wanting in the application filed by the respondent the question of granting full back wages and consequential benefits would not arise. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Tribunal should have exercised its well settled discretion and at the most reduce the payment of back wages and consequential benefits. The learned Counsel in support of his submissions has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board and others v. Maiku Prasad, 2008 119 FLR 195 and in the case of M/s. Reetu Marbles v. Prabhakant Shukla, 2010 124 FLR 72 wherein 50% of the back wages were directed to be paid.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri G. Vijaychandran, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the material on record and has come to the conclusion that there was no misrepresentation or any gain availed by the respondent on the basis that she belonged to Schedule Tribe. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the respondent has correctly disclosed that she had produced her certificate before the concerned Authorities to show that she belongs to the Schedule Tribe. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioners themselves accepted the said certificate and found that she fitted into the qualifications to be appointed as Stenographer Grade III. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the respondent was not aware about any differences between the backward tribe and scheduled tribe and as such considering that the petitioners themselves have accepted the said certificate and given her employment for nearly 30 years itself disentitles the petitioners to raise such contention. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and pointed out that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the material on record and has allowed the application filed by the respondent. The learned Counsel as such submits that the first contention of Shri M. Amonkar is totally misplaced. The learned Counsel further pointed out with regard to the back wages fairly accepts that there was no averment in the main claim put forward by the respondent that she was not gainfully employed during the interregnum. The learned Counsel however points out that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the respondent has been unlawfully dismissed from services and as such in such circumstances the Tribunal was justified to direct the payment of full back wages and consequential benefits. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the respondent has been reinstated at the belated stage despite of the orders passed by the Tribunal in the year 2011. The learned Counsel further pointed out that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel in support of his submissions has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court dated 13.4.2009 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7308/2008 in the case of Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others, and the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 6.11.2009 in Civil Writ Petition No. 14998/2009 in the case of Sports Authority of India and another v. Central Administrative Tribunal and another.