(Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
Deepak Kumar & Ors. ___________________________ Petitioner(s)
v.
Principal Secretary Home, Govt. of U.P, Lucknow (U.P) & Anr. ______________________________________________ Respondent(s)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10004/2016, decided on August 17, 2017
(With Appln(s) For IA No. 70474/2017-Permission to File Additional Documents and IA No. 70476/2017-Exemption From Filing O.T.)
With
SLP(C) No. 10006/2016 (XI) (With Appln(s) For IA No. 69737/2017-Impleading Party and IA No. 70477/2017-Permission to File Additional Documents and IA No. 70478/2017-Exemption From Filing O.T.) SLP(C) No. 10005/2016 (XI) (With Appln(s) For IA No. 70466/2017-Permission to File Additional Documents and IA No. 70468/2017-Exemption From Filing O.T.) SLP(C) No. 10008/2016 (XI) (With Appln(s) For IA No. 70481/2017-Permission to File Additional Documents and IA No. 70482/2017-Exemption From Filing O.T.)
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Application for impleadment, filed in SLP(C) No. 10006/2016, is taken on Board and is allowed.
2. These are the cases where in the State of Uttar Pradesh the police constables recruited and appointed during 2005-06 were terminated in September, 2007. That termination has been held to be wrong by the learned Single Judge and confirmed thereafter by the Division Bench. Since the declaration regarding the termination to be bad in law stands even as on today, in any case the constables who were terminated during 2005-06 are entitled to continuity of service from their respective date of termination to the date of reinstatement. According to the State it is a fresh appointment, which we find difficult to appreciate in view of the judgment of the High Court.
3. We agree with the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh that in the peculiar facts of these cases, in any case they will not be entitled to backwages from the date of termination till the date of judgment of the learned Single Judge. The remaining question is only with regard to the backwages from the date of judgment by the learned Single Judge i.e. 8.12.2008 to 27.05.2009, the date of reinstatement.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General invited our reference to the judgment dated 4.3.2009, wherein the Division Bench, after agreeing with the learned Single Judge in the matter of cancellation of the appointment as bad, has granted liberty to the State to conduct a fresh exercise and, therefore, it is submitted that the constables may not be entitled to any backwages from the date of the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the actual date of fresh appointment/reinstatement.
5. We find it difficult to wholly agree with the learned Additional Advocate General. As far as the people who are before this Court, we are tentatively of the view that they must be entitled to some equitable relief in the matter of backwages for the period from 8.12.2008 to 27.05.2009.
6. We make it clear that this equitable relief would be confined only to the people who are before this Court either as petitioners or as impleaders, as on today.
7. The Registry is directed not to entertain any impleadment or fresh petition in respect of the subject matter involved in these petitions.
8. Learned Additional Advocate General of the State of U.P. seeks some time to get instruction.
9. Post on 12.09.2017
———
