- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Lt. Governor Of Delhi And Others v. Dharampal And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondents were constables in the Delhi Police recruited between 1964 and 1966. Their services were terminated following their participation in a police agitation in April 1967. Although many similarly situated constables were later re-inducted, the present respondents were not reinstated.
Several rounds of litigation ensued:
- In 1975 the Delhi High Court quashed termination orders in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 26 of 1969 and 106 of 1970, declaring those petitioners to be continuously in service. Letters Patent Appeals (L.P.A.) Nos. 24 and 25 of 1976 were dismissed as time-barred.
- Other dismissed constables succeeded in C.W.P. Nos. 270 and 937 of 1978 (Anand J., Delhi High Court) where delay and laches were rejected and termination orders were quashed subject to conditions.
- The present respondents later filed writ petitions raising identical grievances; these petitions were transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi.
- On 26 November 1987 the Tribunal directed that the respondents be given the same relief as granted in C.W.P. Nos. 270 and 937 of 1978.
- The Union of India and Delhi Police authorities obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, resulting in the instant appeals.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was correct in extending to the respondents the relief earlier granted by the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 270 and 937 of 1978, notwithstanding the alleged delay and laches in filing their petitions.
- Whether the respondents were entitled to full back wages and consequential benefits for the period between their termination and reinstatement.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Delhi High Court Judgment dated 1 Oct 1975 in C.W.P. Nos. 26 of 1969 & 106 of 1970 | Termination orders of similarly situated constables quashed; petitioners deemed continuously in service. | Referenced as an earlier instance where relief was granted, illustrating consistent judicial treatment of identical terminations. |
| Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 24 & 25 of 1976 (Delhi High Court) – dismissed | Upheld the 1 Oct 1975 judgment; dismissal on limitation confirmed relief to constables. | Cited to show that the 1975 decision had attained finality. |
| Delhi High Court Judgment in C.W.P. Nos. 270 & 937 of 1978 (Anand J.) | Rejected defence of delay/laches; quashed termination; directed reinstatement with conditions. | Formed the very basis of the Tribunal’s order; Supreme Court relied on it to affirm similar relief for present respondents. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that the claims of the present respondents were “identical” to those decided in C.W.P. Nos. 270 and 937 of 1978. Since that earlier judgment had been upheld by the Delhi High Court in intra-court appeal and had attained finality, the Tribunal’s reliance on it was justified.
The Court also observed that the Tribunal had correctly rejected the argument of delay and laches, in line with Anand J.’s reasoning in the 1978 writ petitions. Consequently, the appeals lacked merit.
However, exercising its equitable jurisdiction, the Court modified the Tribunal’s order to balance monetary consequences. It directed each respondent (except Respondent 24, deceased) to file an affidavit disclosing any gainful employment during the period of termination. The employer is permitted to adjust back-wage liability by deducting earnings from such alternative employment, though the entire interregnum will count for purposes of seniority, promotion, and retiral benefits.
Holding and Implications
APPEALS DISMISSED; TRIBUNAL ORDER AFFIRMED WITH A LIMITED MODIFICATION.
Direct Effect: Respondents remain reinstated; they will receive arrears of salary and allowances for the termination period after adjustment for any proven alternative earnings. Their seniority, promotional prospects, and retiral benefits will be computed as if they were continuously in service.
Broader Implications: The judgment reinforces consistency with earlier Delhi High Court decisions on identical termination orders but does not set out any new legal principle beyond fine-tuning monetary relief through gainful-employment offsets.
B.C Ray, J.— These appeals arose out of the judgment and order dated November 26, 1987 passed by the Central Administrative 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 C.W.P Nos. 278 of 1978 and 937 of 1978.
2. 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, prosecutions were withdrawn and the dismissed constables were reinducted into service. Some of the dismissed constables filed Civil Writ Petition Nos. 26 of 1969 and 106 of 1970 in the High Court of Delhi and 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 appeals being L.P.A 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.
3. 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 C.W.P Nos. 270 and 937 of 1978. These writ petitions were heard by Anand, J. who rejected the contention raised by the respondents in the writ petitions regarding the delay and laches in moving the writ petitions, allowed the writ petitions quashing the impugned order of termination declaring that the petitioners will be deemed to have been in service and would be treated as such subject to certain conditions. The Police 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 petitioners should be denied any relief because of delay and laches held that the claims of the petitioners (respondents in these appeals) was identical to the claim of the petitioners in C.W.P 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 as was granted to the petitioners by Anand, J. in C.W.P Nos. 270 and 937 of 1978.
4. Against this judgment and order the instant appeals on special leave have been filed before this Court.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the judgment rendered by Anand, J. in C.W.P 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 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. We, however, make it clear that for the purposes of seniority, promotion and retrial benefits, the entire period between termination and reinstatement shall be taken into account.
6. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that all the respondents have already been reinstated in service and they are now working. Respondent 24, however, has expired and the back wages have already been paid to his widow. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
Alert