IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 6209 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22nd April, 2010 Om Prakash Goel Petitioner Versus H.P. Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr.Dilip Sharma, Advocate For the respondent: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner was appointed as an Accountant with the respondent- Corporation on 8.5.1979. On 21.8.1981 he was charge-sheeted for allegedly facilitating and abetting embezzlement of “Rs.100/-“ and making factitious entries in the cash book. On 8.1.1982 the services of the petitioner were terminated without holding any enquiry. The petitioner was forced to knock the doors of justice and ultimately the matter was adjudicated by the Apex Court in terms of its judgment dated 6.5.1991 in SLP (Civil) No. 13560 of 1983, titled as Om Prakash Goel vs. H.P. Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and another. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:- “In the result the termination order is quashed and consequently the petitioner shall be reinstated in Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? service. However, he shall be entitled to the full back wages upto the date of his enrolment as a lawyer which was in the month of October, 1982. From the date of his enrolment upto the date of reinstatement he shall be entitled to the back wages at the rate of half of the subsistence allowance per month and the total amount shall be computed on that basis. Out of that the income of Rs.15,5,50/- admittedly earned by him as a practicing lawyer shall be deducted and the balance amount shall be paid to the petitioner. The amount so paid to him shall, for the purpose of income tax, be spread over as if derived during those financial years from the date of his dismissal till the date of reinstatement. However, we would like to make it clear that it is open to the Corporation to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry if it so chooses. The special leave petition is accordingly disposed of. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.” As a consequence of the aforesaid order, the petitioner was reinstated but, however, no consequential benefits were given to him for the period prior to his reinstatement. Even the petitioner’s representation to the Board did not find favour with them. The matter was ultimately taken up by the petitioner before the Apex Court, which passed the order dated 30.8.1999 as under:- “I.A.No.1 is dismissed. However, it is always open to the petitioner to challenge his alleged non-promotion.” The petition being OA No.3261 of 1999 was originally filed before the H.P. Administrative Tribunal and pursuant to the abolition of the Tribunal, which stands now transferred to this Court and numbered as CWP (T) No.6209 of 2008. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent also initiated an enquiry against the petitioner and in terms of order dated 1.6.1996 imposed the following penalty:- “Now, therefore, having carefully considered the question of imposing penalty on the said Sh.O.P.Goel, and since he has not been allowed full wages etc. for the period from his termination to his reinstatement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the undersigned has come to the conclusion that this is sufficient to meet the requirements of the situation.” The petitioner has neither challenged this order nor is he claiming back wages in the present petition. His grievance is with regard to the denial of promotional benefits to which he was otherwise entitled to, as a consequence of his reinstatement pursuant to the orders of the Apex Court. Undisputedly such benefits have not been accorded to him. The stand taken in the return is to the effect that the petitioner’s reinstatement in effect is a fresh appointment and not continuation of his earlier appointment. The stand taken by the Corporation is totally unexplainable in law. The Apex Court quashed the illegal action of termination of the petitioner’s services by the respondent-Corporation on the ground that his fundamental right stood violated. Even in the subsequent enquiry the penalty imposed is to the limited extent. Thus the petitioner’s appointment has to relate back to the date of his termination. Hence except for the concession made by him before the Apex Court as duly recorded in the order and also penalty imposed in by the respondent-Board in terms of order dated 1.6.1996, the petitioner is entitled to all consequential service benefits in accordance with law The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to all the consequential service benefits in accordance with law. The respondents are directed to take necessary action within four months from today. It is clarified that payments due, if any, are not released to the petitioner within the aforesaid period, he shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum thereafter. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is allowed. 22nd April, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.