Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th March, 2026
JAI BHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Mittal, Mr. Shaurya Mittal, & Ms. Dhanya Visweswaran, Advs.
Through: Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. On 24.02.2026, the following order was passed:
2. In compliance with the aforesaid direction, an Affidavit has been filed by the Respondent.
3. Once again, this Court has heard learned counsel representing the parties.
4. As already noticed, the only issue is entitlement of the Petitioner to re-fixation of salary upon reinstatement pursuant to the order passed by the learned Labour Court, wherein it was directed that the Petitioner would be reinstated in service with continuity of service.
5. It is the stand of the Respondent that there is no direction by the learned Labour Court to refix the salary of the Petitioner upon reinstatement. It is claimed that reinstatement with continuity of service does not entail refixation of salary after notionally calculating annual increments.
6. Learned counsel representing the Respondent relies upon the following Judgments: i. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P. Agrawal & Anr.: 2007 (2) SCC 433. ii. Rajasthan State Road Transport vs. Shyam Bihari Lal Gupta: 2005 (7) SCC.
7. This Court has considered the submissions.
8. It is evident that the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra) was different to the present case, since, in the said case, the Court found that the punishment of dismissal of the employee was substituted by some lesser punishment and the observations were made only in the aforesaid context to hold that employee was not entitled for certain consequential benefits.
9. However, in the present case, the termination of Petitioner’s services was found to be illegal by the learned Labour Court and he was specifically ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service.
10. Similarly, the Judgment passed in Rajasthan State Road Transport (supra) is also distinguishable because the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case, had made certain observations while deciding an Execution Petition filed by an employee after a suit filed by him had been decreed. The issue involved in the aforesaid case was entirely different to the present issue.
11. In fact, attention of the Court has been drawn to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Mahabir Prasad vs. Delhi Transport Corporation: 2014 (144) DRJ 422, wherein the effect of reinstatement of employee with continuity of service was examined in the context of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and Ors: (2013) 10 SCC 324 and it was held that direction to grant continuity means that the employee had to be given notional increments for the duration he remained out of service. Judgment of the Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra) was also taken note of by the High Court.
12. The relevant extracts of the Judgment passed in Mahabir Prasad (supra) is reproduced as under:
13. Keeping in view aforesaid position, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’) erred in overlooking the fact that the Petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and the Judgment passed by the learned CAT is a result of misreading of order passed by the learned Labour Court.
14. The Respondents are directed to fix the pay of the Petitioner after giving him notional increments for the duration he was out of employment.
15. If in the meantime, the Grades have been revised, the Petitioner shall be placed in equivalent Grade.
16. This exercise should be completed within a period of two months from today.
17. Needless to observe that the Respondents will pay consequential retiral benefits flowing from refixation of pay. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J MARCH 16, 2026 “SK”