Salary of 19 years was granted for illegal termination of employee
The observation of Jharkhand High court-
The Jharkhand High Court has issued a directive to the State government, instructing it to release 19 years’ worth of pending salary to an employee who was unlawfully terminated from their position within the Department of Industries (Handloom, Resham, and Sericulture).
Why he was terminated?
The petitioner was initially appointed as a clerk-cum-cashier at one of the Department’s pilot project centers in 1984. According to the petitioner’s claim, his services were confirmed, and he received time-bound promotions. However, in 1998, the Director of Industries issued instructions not to pay salaries to the petitioner and two others, Subhash Chandra Yadav and Shailendra Kumar. Subsequently, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner by issuing a show-cause notice, which ultimately led to his termination.
This sequence of events suggests that despite the petitioner’s long-standing service and apparent confirmation of his employment, he and two other individuals were subjected to a directive to withhold their salaries, followed by disciplinary proceedings culminating in termination. These actions were taken based on the allegations outlined in the show-cause notice, leading to the termination of the petitioner’s employment.
Also read why congress plea against the ITAT decision was rejected by the court
Relief by the court-
The court emphasized that in situations where an employee is deemed entirely innocent and has been subjected to wrongful termination driven by malicious intent, it would be unfair to deprive them of the employment benefits that they are rightfully entitled to. This ruling underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring justice and fair treatment for individuals who have been wronged by unjust actions such as unlawful termination.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, presiding over the case, emphasized that if the Court determines that there has been illegality on the part of the relevant authority and that the petitioner was unjustly prevented from performing their duties, it is incumbent upon the Court to annul the order and issue appropriate directives. In the present case, the Court had already ruled that the order through which the petitioner was terminated was deemed illegal and was subsequently nullified. The predecessor of the current respondent number 2 had been involved in this decision.
Read the judgment-
