Sonu Kumar, BPM & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

1. This application has been filed by the applicant Harmesh Choudhary with following prayers: “It is therefore, most respectfully, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:- (a) Issue appropriate directions to the official respondents to extend the benefit of judgment dated 16.01.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.11973/2016, to the applicants/respondents thereby reinstating them and treating them at par with the petitioners; and/or (b) Pass any other order, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

2. The facts as noted from the application are that the petitioner along with 65 other similarly placed persons had filed an Original W.P.(C) 11973/2016 Page 2 Application being OA 2910/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi („Tribunal‟, for short) primarily challenging various termination orders issued on June 24, 2015. The OA was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated August 30, 2016. The said judgment of the Tribunal became a subject matter of challenge before this Court in a writ petition being W.P.(C) 11973/2016 decided on January 16, 2020, whereby this Court had set aside the order of the Tribunal dated August 30, 2016 and directed the reinstatement of the petitioners who had filed the writ petition, within a period of eight weeks, however by following the principle of „no work no pay‟.

3. It may be stated here that the applicant herein was not the petitioner in that writ petition. As he was an applicant in the Original Application, he was impleaded as performa respondent No.8.

4. The judgment of this Court dated January 16, 2020 became a subject matter of a Special Leave Petition being SLP 12311/2020, filed by the official respondents herein, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The effect thereof is that the order dated January 16, 2020 became final.

5. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is all the petitioners before this Court were given the benefit of the judgment of this Court dated January 16, 2020. He submits, though the applicant herein was an applicant before the Tribunal, but had not challenged the judgment and as such was not a petitioner before this Court. Therefore, the benefit of the Judgment of this Court dated January 16, 2020, was not given to him as he has not been reinstated though he is similarly placed like the petitioners in the writ petition. W.P.(C) 11973/2016 Page 3

6. His plea is that the applicant was under a bonafide belief that the benefit of the order of this Court shall also be given to him. In fact, after the dismissal of the SLP, a legal notice dated July 2, 2022 was served on the respondents for compliance of the order passed this Court in favour of the applicant. The respondents replied to the applicant stating that the benefit cannot be given to him was he was not amongst the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition. He submits that the applicant was also part of the omnibus termination order dated June 24, 2015 which has already been set aside by this Court and the petitioners who are similarly placed like the applicant have been reinstated.

7. He states that the judgment of this Court is applicable to all similarly placed persons whose services have been terminated on June 24, 2015 and on mere technicality, the benefit should not be denied to the applicant herein. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, to contend that any judgment in rem should be made applicable to similarly placed persons and all such persons should not be made to rush to the Court seeking benefit thereof.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that, as the applicant was not the petitioner before this Court, he is not entitled to the benefit, though he do concede to the fact that the applicant is similarly placed like the petitioners before this Court, who got the benefit of the Judgment dated January 16, 2020.

9. He seeks the dismissal of the application.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the short issue W.P.(C) 11973/2016 Page 4 which arises for consideration is whether the applicant herein is entitled to the benefit of the Judgment dated January 16, 2020 passed by this Court. The answer to the said question has to be in the affirmative inasmuch as the applicant was a part of the Original Application which challenged the order dated June 24, 2015 before the Tribunal. It is a fact that the petitioner did not join the petitioners before this Court for the reasons best known to him. This Court had set aside the order of the Tribunal and granted the relief to the petitioners, who had approached this Court for reinstatement. Naturally, as the applicant was not the petitioner, he was not given the benefit of the said Judgment. I must state when the respondents had filed an SLP before the Supreme Court, the applicant was also made a pro-forma respondent, as he was a party in the original proceedings before the Tribunal.

11. This Court while setting aside the order of the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Union of India v. Archna Mishra, Writ Petition (Civil) No.49864/2017, decided on April 30, 2018 wherein the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition upholding the order of the Tribunal by stating that the incumbents being the holders of Civil Post, the order of termination is a punitive termination as procedure under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, was required to be followed.

12. So, to that extent, finding of this Court in the order dated January 16, 2020, shall equally be applicable to the applicant herein. No doubt, merely the applicant was not a petitioner before this Court, the benefit of the order which was confined to 56 petitioners who are similarly placed like the applicant herein, there is no reason why the W.P.(C) 11973/2016 Page 5 benefit of the said judgment should not be given to the applicant herein. Otherwise, it would so happen that despite the fact that termination has been set aside, the benefit of reinstatement, shall not enure to the benefit of the applicant herein.

13. It is not a case where applicant had not challenged the order of termination issued by the respondents as he had already filed an Original Application before the Tribunal which had dismissed the same. Learned counsel for the applicant is justified in relying upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has summed up the principles with regard to whether or not the benefit of a judgment could be extended to those who are not parties to the litigation. The Supreme Court has in paragraph 22 held as under: