नई दिल्ली। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा है कि नौ साल तक लगातार नियमित सेवा के बाद किसी को नौकरी से निकाल देना गैर-कानूनी है। अदालत ने बर्खास्त की गई महिला टीचर की नौकरी बहाल की तथा निलंबन की अवधि का आधा वेतन देने का आदेश दिया। जस्टिस शरद अरविंद बोबडे और एल नागेश्वर राव की बेंच ने पंजाब के रूपनगर जिले की एक स्कूल टीचर को राहत दी।
नांगल के शिवालिक एनएसी हाई स्कूल में समाज शास्त्र की अध्यापिका अरुणा सैनी को 1994 में कुछ माह की लीव वेकेंसी पर रखा गया था। अरुणा को राज वर्मा के स्थान पर अस्थाई रूप से नौकरी दी गई थी। बिना अनुमति के लम्बी छुट्टी पर रहने पर राज वर्मा को नौकरी से हटा दिया गया। स्कूल प्रबंधन ने अरुणा को इस शर्त के साथ स्थाई किया कि यदि राज वर्मा अदालत से बहाल होती हैं तो उन्हें हटना पड़ेगा। राज वर्मा को अदालत से अंतत: राहत मिली और प्रबंधन को उसे नौकरी पर रखना पड़ा।
नौकरी की शतरे के अनुसार राज वर्मा के आते ही अरुणा को हटा दिया गया। लेकिन वह तब तक नौ साल की सेवाएं दे चुकी थी। उनकी नौकरी स्थाई थी और बाकायदा भविष्य निधि भी वेतन से कटता था। ट्रायल कोर्ट ने अरुणा की नौकरी बहाल कर दी। उसे निलंबन अवधि की पूरा वेतन एरियर सहित देने का आदेश दिया। स्कूल का प्रबंधन नांगल की नगर पालिका के हाथ में था। नगर पालिका ने अपील की। अतिरिक्त जिला जज ने ट्रायल कोर्ट के आदेश को निरस्त कर दिया लेकिन पंजाब और हरियाणा हाई कोर्ट ने ट्रायल कोर्ट के फैसले का बहाल किया।
नगर पालिका की विशेष अनुमति याचिका का निपटारा करते हुए सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि अदालत के आदेश पर दोबारा नौकरी पर आई राज वर्मा बहाली के कुछ दिन बाद सेवानिवृत्त हो गई। उनके अवकाश ग्रहण करने के बाद अरुणा ने फिर से स्कूल में टीचर के लिए आवेदन किया जिसे अस्वीकार कर दिया गया।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि वैसे तो अरुणा का निष्कासन ही गलत है क्योंकि उसे हटाते समय सिर्फ 24 घंटे का नोटिस दिया गया। एक दिन में नोटिस का जवाब देना असंभव है और यह प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धांत के खिलाफ है। राज वर्मा के रिटायर होने पर अरुणा का हक बनता है। स्कूल को उन्हें अवसर देना चाहिए था।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने अरुणा को सम्पूर्ण वेतन सहित बहाल करने के हाई कोर्ट के आदेश में मामूली बदलाव किया। निलंबन की अवधि का पूरा वेतन देने के बजाए आधी तनख्वाह देने का आदेश दिया। लेकिन बहाली के दिन से पूरा वेतन दिया जाएगा। सभी भत्ते भी देय होंगे। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि पेंशन की गणना करते समय उसकी बहाली की तारीख को ध्यान में रखा जाए।
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.3350 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.31965 of 2015)
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, NANGAL & ORS.
.... Appellant(s)
Versus
ARUNA SAINI
….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
The Suit filed by the Respondent seeking a direction to the
Appellants to reinstate her as Social Studies Teacher in Shivalik NAC High
School, Naya Nangal was decreed which was modified in the First Appeal
filed by the Appellants. The First Appellate Court held that the
Respondent only had a right to be considered for appointment and was not
entitled for a direction of reinstatement. The High Court reversed the
judgment of the First Appellate Court and restored the judgment and decree
of the Trial Court. The said judgment of the High Court is in challenge
before us.
2. The Respondent was appointed as a temporary Social Studies Teacher on
20.07.1994 against a leave vacancy. The vacancy arose due to the non-
joining of Smt. Raj Verma who availed leave from 15.07.1993 to 17.07.1993
and did not report later. By an order dated 03.12.1994, the Executive
Officer-cum-Member Secretary, Shivalik NAC High School, Naya Nangal
dismissed Smt. Raj Verma w.e.f. 15.11.1994 for her unauthorised absence.
Vide Resolution No.3 dated 15.11.1994 the Respondent was appointed as a
Social Studies Teacher on a permanent basis in the post that fell vacant
due to the termination of services of Smt. Raj Verma. One of the conditions
of the appointment of the Respondent was that she will not be entitled to
claim any right if Smt. Raj Verma succeeded in the case filed by her. Smt.
Raj Verma was reinstated on 14.07.2003 in view of the decision of the Court
in her favour. On 15.07.2003, the Executive Officer of the Municipal
Council, Nangal relieved the Respondent on the ground that her services
were no longer required in view of the reinstatement of Smt. Raj Verma.
3. The Respondent approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition
challenging the termination of her services and withdrew the same with
liberty to approach the Labour Court. She later filed an application for
modification of the order with liberty to file a Civil Suit. The said
application was allowed by the High Court on 03.09.2004.
4. Pursuant to the liberty given by the High Court, the Respondent filed
a Civil Suit for mandatory injunction directing the Appellants herein to
reinstate her as a Social Studies Teacher in the Shivalik NAC High School,
Naya Nangal by declaring the order dated 15.07.2003 as illegal, unlawful,
arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. The
Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rupnagar, Nangal by a judgment and
decree dated 16.11.2004 directed the Appellants herein to reinstate the
Respondent as Social Studies Teacher w.e.f. 01.09.2004. The Trial Court
also held that the Respondent was entitled for all the consequential
benefits attached to the post of Social Studies Teacher w.e.f. 01.09.2004.
It was further held that the Respondent was entitled for all the dues from
01.09.2004 with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum. The Civil
Court held that the order of termination dated 15.07.2003 was violative of
principles of natural justice. Taking note of the fact that Smt. Raj Verma
attained superannuation and retired from service on 31.08.2004 and that the
Respondent worked as a regular employee for a period of 9 years, the Trial
Court directed reinstatement of the Respondent w.e.f. 01.09.2004. 5.
The decree and judgment of the Trial Court was modified in favour of the
Appellants by the First Appellate Court. It was held that the Respondent
only had a right of being considered for appointment to the post as and
when it fell vacant. The Respondent approached the High Court by filing a
Regular Second Appeal assailing the judgment of the First Appellate Court.
The High Court restored the judgment of the Trial Court and set aside the
judgment of the Lower Appellate Court. The High Court held that the
Respondent worked for a period of 9 years as a regular teacher. She was
granted annual increments and there were deductions from her salary towards
provident fund. The High Court held that the Appellants ought to have
adjusted the Respondent in an available vacancy taking into account the
long period of service rendered by her on a regular basis. The High Court
found fault with the judgment of the First Appellate Court by holding that
fresh consideration of the case of the Respondent would only lead to
multiplication of the litigation. The High Court was informed that the
Respondent had two more years of service left and in view of the hardship
suffered by the Respondent due to her termination, the High Court held that
the Trial Court was right in directing reinstatement with consequential
benefits.
6. After going through the material on record and considering the
submissions made by the parties, we are of the opinion that the judgment of
the High Court does not warrant interference. The termination of the
services of the Respondent is in clear violation of principles of natural
justice as reasonable opportunity was not given to the Respondent to
furnish her explanation. Admittedly, notice of a mere 24 hours was given to
the Respondent before the order of termination was passed. Undoubtedly,
the regular appointment of the Respondent was on a condition that she would
make way for Smt. Raj Verma in the event of her succeeding in the pending
case. The fact remains that the Respondent worked on regular basis for a
period of 9 years before the termination of her services. Thereafter, the
Respondent made a representation to the Appellants to appoint her in the
vacancy that had arisen due to the superannuation of Smt. Raj Verma on
31.08.2004. However, the Appellants did not consider such request made by
the Respondent. If the termination is bad in law, the Respondent in the
normal course, would be entitled for reinstatement from the date of
termination with all consequential benefits as the termination order is
illegal. But, in view of the condition of the appointment of the
Respondent on 20.07.1994, the Trial Court held that the Respondent was
entitled for reinstatement only w.e.f. 01.09.2004 i.e. after the
superannuation of the incumbent Smt. Raj Verma.
7. The notice issued by this Court in the present case was limited only
for the payment of arrears. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the
Respondent is not entitled for payment of salary and other allowances for
the period of 10 years during which she did not work and we find force in
the said submission. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we
modify the decree and judgment of the Trial Court as follows:
The Respondent is entitled for reinstatement w.e.f. 01.09.2004. She would
be entitled to fifty per cent of the back wages between 01.09.2004 and the
date of her reinstatement.
The Respondent is entitled for salary and other allowances from the date of
her reinstatement till the date of her superannuation.
The Respondent will be entitled to count the service from 2004 onwards for
the purpose of computation of her pension, if any payable.
8. With the aforesaid modification of the decree and judgment of the
Trial Court, the Appeal is disposed of. No costs.
........................................J
[S. A. BOBDE]
....……................................J
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
New Delhi,
February 28, 2017
Non-Reportable
Reviewed by प्राइमरी का मास्टर 1
on
7:12 AM
Rating:
No comments:
Post a Comment