Supreme Court Grants Litigation Expenses to Reinstated Constables: Deepak Kumar vs. State of U.P. (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 10 October 2017
Citation: (2017) INSC 904
Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and R. Banumathi, J.

Can police constables, whose termination was deemed illegal, claim full back wages and continuous service benefits? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving constables in Uttar Pradesh who were terminated and later reinstated. The core issue revolved around whether these constables were entitled to back wages for the period of their termination and whether their service should be considered continuous. This judgment clarifies the rights of employees in similar circumstances.

Case Background

The case involves police constables in Uttar Pradesh who were appointed in 2005-2006 and subsequently terminated in September 2007. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad declared this termination illegal. Despite the High Court’s order, the issue of back wages and continuity of service remained unresolved, leading the constables to approach the Supreme Court. The constables sought full salary for the period between their termination and reinstatement.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The constables initially approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which declared their termination illegal. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed this decision, but the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the single judge’s order, while also granting liberty to the State to conduct a fresh exercise to weed out tainted candidates. Despite this liberty, the State did not conduct any further inquiry and reinstated all the constables. Subsequently, the constables filed a contempt petition in the High Court seeking full salary from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement. The High Court dismissed this contempt petition, leading the constables to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the interpretation of service law principles concerning termination and reinstatement. The core issue revolves around the consequences of an illegal termination, specifically regarding back wages and continuity of service. While no specific statute or section is explicitly mentioned in the judgment, the principles of natural justice and fair treatment in employment law are implicitly considered. The court also considers the implications of orders passed by the High Court and their effect on the rights of the constables.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that since the High Court had declared their termination illegal, they should be deemed to be ‘in service’ for all purposes, including back wages and continuity of service.
• They contended that the State’s decision to reinstate them without further inquiry implied that their termination was entirely unjustified, entitling them to full benefits.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that the reinstatement was a fresh appointment.
• The State contended that the constables were not entitled to back wages from the date of termination until the date of the High Court’s judgment declaring the termination illegal.
• The State further argued that the constables were not entitled to back wages from the date of the single judge’s judgment to the date of reinstatement because the Division Bench had granted liberty to the State to conduct a fresh exercise.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the court were:

• Whether the constables were entitled to back wages for the period of their termination.
• Whether the constables were entitled to continuity of service from the date of their termination to the date of reinstatement.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly mention any specific cases or books that were relied upon. However, the court implicitly considered the principles of service law and the implications of orders passed by the High Court.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and the peculiar facts of the case, decided not to grant full back wages. Instead, the Court awarded litigation expenses of Rs. 35,000 to each constable who had pursued the matter before the Supreme Court until 17.08.2017. The Court also clarified that the constables would be treated as being in continuous service, except for the purpose of Assured Career Progression (ACP), where actual service would be counted.

The court did not rely on any specific authorities but considered the facts and circumstances of the case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factors, including the unique circumstances of the case, the State’s decision to reinstate all employees without further inquiry, and the need to avoid further litigation. The court acknowledged that the constables had suffered due to the illegal termination but also considered the State’s actions in reinstating them. The court aimed to strike a balance between the rights of the constables and the administrative realities of the State.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the arguments for full back wages but ultimately decided that granting litigation expenses would be a more equitable solution, given the specific circumstances. The court also noted that the State had shown “sufficient grace” by reinstating all employees without further inquiry.

The court quoted:

• “The respondents, having acted within three months from the final order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, we find that the tentative view taken by this Court in the order dated 17.08.2017 needs to be revisited.”
• “Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met in case the appellants before this Court are granted litigation expenses, which would be in full and final settlement of all their claims, which they have been pursuing before the High Court.”
• “Since the entire litigation has been given a quietus, we make it clear that for all other purposes, the Constables concerned who had been terminated in 2006-2007, will be treated to be ‘in continuous service’ except for the Assured Career Progression (ACP), for which the actual service, when they discharged the duties, will be counted.”

Key Takeaways

• Police constables whose termination was declared illegal are entitled to continuity of service, except for ACP purposes.
• Full back wages may not always be granted in cases of illegal termination, especially when the employer has shown “sufficient grace” in reinstating employees.
• Litigation expenses can be awarded as an equitable remedy to settle claims and avoid further litigation.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that litigation expenses of Rs. 35,000 be paid to each constable who pursued the matter before the Supreme Court until 17.08.2017. This payment was to be made on or before 20.12.2017, with an interest of 18% per annum if the payment was delayed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while employees whose termination is declared illegal are entitled to continuity of service, full back wages may not always be granted, and litigation expenses can be awarded as an equitable remedy. This judgment clarifies that reinstatement does not automatically equate to full back wages, especially when the employer has acted to correct the wrong.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Deepak Kumar vs. State of U.P. provides clarity on the rights of employees whose termination has been deemed illegal. While full back wages were not granted, the Court ensured continuity of service and awarded litigation expenses, aiming to balance the interests of the employees and the administrative realities of the State. This judgment emphasizes that each case must be considered in its unique context, and equitable remedies can be tailored to fit the specific circumstances.