DEBOJYOTI DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A dismissed employee, when reinstated with directions that he would not be entitled to backwages and seniority, but he would get other service benefits, whether such "service benefits" will include benefit of increment(s) in pay is the question, which is required to be answered in this writ petition.

(2.) In a short compass, petitioner's case may be put as follows : The petitioner is an employee of respondent No. 2, namely, Allahabad Bank and was, at the relevant time, working as Clerk-cum-Cashier in its Guwahati branch. A domestic enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the ground that his conduct had made the Bank suffer financial loss. In the domestic enquiry, it was held that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. This finding was accepted by the employer and the petitioner was dismissed from service. An industrial dispute was raised and the Industrial Tribunal held that the dismissal of the workman (i.e. the petitioner) was justified. Against the award of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to CR No. 212/92. On 02.06.97, while disposing of the Civil Rule No. 212/92 aforementioned, learned Single Judge held that the penalty of dismissal of the workman from service, for the alleged loss of Rs.4,000/- caused to the Bank, was disproportionate to the charge proved against him. The learned Single Judge, therefore, interfered with the quantum of punishment, set aside the dismissal order and directed petitioner's reinstatement into service, on his remitting Rs.4,000/- to the Bank, with the penalty that the petitioner would not be entitled to back wages, but save and except the back wages, he shall be entitled to other service benefits including his seniority. Against this judgment and order, the respondent Bank preferred an appeal, namely, Writ Appeal No. 354/97. This appeal was partly allowed in favour of the respondent Bank inasmuch as the Division Bench of this Court, on 27.07.98, while maintaining the order for reinstatement of the petitioner, directed that except for the back wages and seniority, the petitioner would be entitled to other service benefits. The petitioner was accordingly reinstated and, upon his reinstatement, the petitioner demanded, inter alia that his pay should be fixed by giving him all benefits of increment(s) treating as if his services had remained uninterrupted. Since this demand of the petitioner was not acceded to by his employer, he made representations, in this regard, claiming that the benefits of increment be given to him. Having not succeeded in obtaining benefits of the increments so sought for, the petitioner has approached this Court, with the help of his present application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate relief(s).

(3.) The respondents have contested this case by filing their affidavit-in-opposition, their case being, briefly stated, thus : the petitioner was holding an important post of trust, but he betrayed the trust and gave financial loss to the respondent Bank. The increments are earned by an employee for the services rendered by him. During the period within which the petitioner remained out of job, there was no continuity in service and, hence, he is not entitled to any increment and that he cannot be paid salary as per scale other than the scale, which was available to the petitioner on the date when he was dismissed from service. The petitioner is, thus, according the respondent Bank, not entitled to any benefit of increments for the period during which he had remained under order of dismissal.