Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 3 (MP)

Dhaniram Patel v. State of M. P.

2019-01-02

SUJOY PAUL

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Shri Sanjay Sanyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Navin Dubey, Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1/State. Shri Rajendra Prasad Pandey, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. With the consent finally heard. 2. The petitioner was terminated from service by order dated 8-4-1997. The petitioner assailed it before Joint Registrar (Judicial) Co-operative Societies, Jabalpur in dispute No. 55(2)-107/2008 decided on 30-3-2013. The termination order dated 8-4-1997 was set aside and petitioner was directed to be reinstated without back-wages. In turn, by order dated 30-5-2013 (Annexure-P/2), the petitioner was given fresh appointment. Criticizing this Order, Shri Sanyal submits that this order runs contrary to the order dated 30-3-2013 (Annexure- P/1), which has attained finality. The respondent No. 2 was required to “reinstate” the petitioner and not “appoint” him. 3. Shri Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 raised singular contention. He submits that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach a Court established under section 55(2) of the Co-operative Societies Act. On merits, he did not advance any contention. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 5. In the opinion of this Court, the contention of Shri Sanyal has substance. The objection raised by other side needs to be overruled for simple reasons that the point involved in this case has already been decided by a direction to “reinstate” the petitioner. There is no factual dispute or legal conundrum, which may compel this Court to relegate the petitioner to avail the remedy under the Co-operative Societies Act. 6. In service jurisprudence, the word “reinstatement” has a definite connotation. In Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) (2013) 10 SCC 324 , the Apex Court opined as under: “21. The word “reinstatement” has not been defined in the Act and the Rules. As per Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. 2, 3rd Edn., the word “reinstate” means to reinstall or re-establish (a person or thing in a place, station, condition, etc.); to restore to its proper or original state; to reinstate afresh and the word “reinstatement” means the action of reinstating; re-establishment. As per Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. 2, 3rd Edn., the word “reinstate” means to reinstall or re-establish (a person or thing in a place, station, condition, etc.); to restore to its proper or original state; to reinstate afresh and the word “reinstatement” means the action of reinstating; re-establishment. As per Law Lexicon, 2nd Edn., the word “reinstate” means to reinstall; to re-establish; to place again in a former state, condition or office; to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed and the word “reinstatement” means establishing in former condition, position or authority (as) reinstatement of a deposed prince. As per Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word “reinstate” means to place again (as in possession or in a former position), to restore to a previous effective state. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edn., “reinstatement” means: “To reinstall, to re-establish, to place again in a former state, condition, or office; to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed.” 22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer.” 7. In the light of aforesaid, it is clear that in cases where “reinstatement” is directed, the clock has to be put back on the stage petitioner was terminated from service and his continuation is implied in the direction of “reinstatement” whereas “appointment” gives a fresh right to work from the date, appointment order has been issued. The direction of Joint Registrar was to “reinstate” the petitioner and not to “appoint” or “reappoint” the petitioner. Thus, respondent No. 2 has clearly committed an error and compelled the petitioner to file this avoidable piece of litigation. Thus, order dated 30-5-2013 (Annexure-P/2) to the extent petitioner was “appointed” is set aside. The petitioner shall be treated to be reinstated and continued in employment w.e.f. 8-4-1997. However, he shall not be entitled for backwages between 8-4-1997 and 30-5-2013. 8. With aforesaid observations, petition is allowed. No cost. Petition allowed.