SALIMUDDIN Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitioner had filed Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal against the order of termination dated 19.03.1996 on 11.03.2002. During the pendency of said original application, the petitioner filed Misc. Civil Application No. 375 of 2006 practically for the same relief. The Tribunal partly allowed the said original application. It set aside the termination and directed the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner. However, negatived the claim of the petitioner for backwages and also did not grant any relief with regard to continuity in service and other consequential benefits. Aggrieved by non grant of relief to the extent of backwages, continuity in service and other consequential benefits, the present petition is filed.

(2.) MR . Mustafa, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Tribunal in para 18 of the impugned judgment has observed that, it is convinced about the grievous trauma that has been caused both to the person and human dignity of the applicant and the same needs to be redressed. The order of termination is not justified, however, has refused to award backwages only on the ground that the petitioner has not actually rendered service from March 1996. The learned counsel submits that, the petitioner was not at fault for the delay in deciding the legal proceedings. The original application was filed before the Tribunal in the year 2002. The same was admitted and it was decided only on 04th August, 2011. The petitioner cannot be held responsible for the delay in deciding the said original application. The principle deduced by the tribunal that no backwages should be awarded to the petitioner, as the petitioner has not actually rendered service with the Government is erroneous. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. Ed.) and others reported in : 2013 AIR SCW 5330. The learned counsel submits that, the Apex Court in the said case has held that, if the employer has acted in gross violation of statutory provisions or is guilty of victimizing employee or workman, then the Court is justified in directing payment of full backwages. In the present case also the respondent/employer was not justified in terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner was granted clear acquittal in the criminal case. Even without holding departmental enquiry only because the criminal cases were pending, the authority was not justified in terminating the services of the petitioner. The learned counsel also relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Tapash Kumar Paul v. B.S.N.L. and another reported in : 2014 AIR SCW 5816 and submits that, the petitioner during the relevant period at no material point of time was gainfully employed. The learned counsel further submits that, the Tribunal has granted reinstatement from the date of the order. No relief of continuity in service has been granted. The same is bad, when the order of termination is set aside the petitioner is entitled for the continuity in service.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for respective parties.