http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CONST. DHARAMPAL AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/05/1990

BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR 2059            1990 SCR  (3)  93  1990 SCC  (4)  13        JT 1990 (2)   432  1990 SCALE  (1)138  CITATOR INFO :  R          1992 SC1414  (1,3,5,7,8)

ACT:     Services: Delhi  police--Constables--Services  terminat- ed for participating in agitation--Reinstatement of--Payment of salary-Treatment of period between termination and  rein- statement--Directions issued.

HEADNOTE:     The respondents, who were working as Constables in Delhi Police and whose services were terminated for  participating in an agitation, filed writ petitions before the High Court, praying  for  quashing  the order of  termination,  and  for reinstatement, deeming them to have been in service through- out,  and  awarding consequential benefits. Relying  on  the decision  of  the  High Court, as affirmed  by  the  Supreme Court,  in the case of some Constables, whose services  were similarly  terminated, the Central Administrative  Tribunal, to  whom the cases were transferred, held that the  respond- ents were entitled to be deemed to have been in service. Dismissing the appeals, by the Administration, this Court,     HELD:  All  the respondents should be deemed  to  be  in service.  All  of  them, except respondent No.  24  who  has expired  and whose widow has already been paid  back  wages, should file affidavits, stating whether they had been  gain- fully  employed or not during the period of the  termination of  service and if so employed, they will state  further  in the affidavits the period of such employment. The appellants may verify the same and will be at liberty to deduct the pay and allowances during the period of such gainful  employment while  determining the arrears of salary and allowances  for the  period  of termination. However, for  the  purposes  of seniority, promotion and retiral benefits, the entire period between  termination and reinstatement shall be  taken  into account. [95E-F]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL   APPELLATE  JURISDICTION:  Civil   Appeal   Nos. 33763382 of 1988.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    From  the  Judgment and Order dated 26.11.1987  of  the Central Administrative Tribunal. Delhi in T. Nos. 950,  961, 972, 986, 1049, 94 1198 of 1985 and T. No. 383 of 1986. B.B. Barua, Aruneshwar Gupta and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellants.     Juse  P. Verghese, K.N. Rai and N.N Sharma for  the  Re- spondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     RAY.  J.  These appeals arose out of  the  judgment  and order dated November 26, 1987 passed by the Central Adminis- trative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi directing that  the petitioners (respondents in these appeals) will be  entitled to  the  same relief as was granted to  the  petitioners  by Anand, J. in the writ petitions CWP Nos. 278 of 1978 and 937 of 1978.     The  matrix of the case, in short, is that the  services of the respondents who were appointed as constables in Delhi Police in the years 1964-66 were terminated because of their participation  in  the  agitation along  with  other  police constables in April 1967. In view of the public  controversy and  in  deference to the views expressed in  Parliament,  a large  number  of agitating constables were  taken  back  in service  as fresh entrants. Later, in view of the  assurance given in the Parliament by the then Home Minister,  prosecu- tions  were  withdrawn  and the  dismissed  constables  were reinducted  into service. Some of the  dismissed  constables filed Civil Writ Petition Nos. 26/69 and 106/70 in the  High Court  of  Delhi and the High Court by  its  judgment  dated October  1,  1975 quashed the order of termination  and  the petitioners  in that case were declared to be throughout  in service.  The Police Administration preferred  separate  ap- peals  being LPA Nos. 24 and 25 of 1976. Both these  appeals were  dismissed  as barred by time and the judgment  of  the High Court dated October 1, 1975 became final.     Subsequently, some other constables whose services  were similarly terminated but were not reinstated in service even as fresh entrants, filed writ petitions in the High Court of Delhi  being CWP Nos. 270 and 937 of 1978. These writ  peti- tions  were heard by Anand, J. who rejected  the  contention raised  by the respondents in the writ  petitions  regarding the delay and latches in moving the writ petitions,  allowed the  writ petitions quashing the impugned order of  termina- tion  declaring that the petitioners will be deemed to  have been  in  service and would be treated as  such  subject  to certain conditions. The Police 95 Administration  filed  LPA against this judgment  which  was dismissed  on  August 29, 1983. Thereafter  the  respondents herein  filed the writ petitions in the High  Court  against the  order  of  termination of their  services  praying  for quashing  of the orders of termination and  for  reinstating them  in  service with effect from the respective  dates  of their termination of services and to treat them as being  in service  throughout  and  to award  them  all  consequential benefits. These writ petitions were subsequently transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi. The  Tribunal while  rejecting the plea of the respondents that the  peti- tioners  should  be denied any relief because of  delay  and latches held that the claims of the petitioners (respondents in  these appeals) was identical to the claim of  the  peti- tioners in CWP Nos. 270 and 937 of 1978 whose petitions were allowed  by  the High Court of Delhi. The  Tribunal  further held  that the petitioners were entitled to the same  relief

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

as was granted to the petitioners by Anand, J. in C W P Nos. 270 and 937 of 1978.       Against this judgment and order the instant appeals on leave have been filed before this Court.     We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Consider- ing facts and circumstances as well as the judgment rendered by Anand J. in CWP Nos. 270 and 937 of 1978, we dismiss  the appeals  and confirm the judgment and order  dated  November 26,  1987  of the Tribunal with the  modification  that  the respondents,  excepting respondent No. 24, Kanwal Singh  who is dead, will file affidavits stating whether they had  been gainfully employed or not during the period of the  termina- tion of service and if so employed, they will state  further in the affidavits the period of such employment. The  appel- lants  may verify the same and will be at liberty to  deduct the  pay and allowances during the period such  gainful  em- ployment while determining the arrears of salary and  allow- ances  for the period of termination. We, however,  make  it clear  that  for the purposes of  seniority,  promotion  and retiral benefits, the entire period between termination  and reinstatement shall be taken into account.     It has been stated by the learned counsel for the appel- lants that all the respondents have already been  reinstated in service and they are now working. The respondent No.  24, however,  has expired and the back wages have  already  been paid  to his widow. In the facts circumstances of  the  case there will be no order as to costs. N.P.V.                                         Appeals  dis- missed. 96