Court’s Decision:
The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a reinstated assistant teacher seeking full salary for the period he was terminated from service between 01.11.2013 and 28.05.2017. The Court upheld the District Education Officer’s decision granting 50% salary for that period and held that the petitioner was not entitled to full back wages since the original order of reinstatement, passed in a prior writ petition, had clearly limited his entitlement to the period during which he had actually worked.
Facts:
The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher under the “Physically Handicapped” category. However, his services were terminated on 31.10.2013 by the District Programme Officer, Vaishali, on the ground that he did not fulfill the minimum disability criteria required under law for that category.
He challenged the termination by filing a writ petition in 2013, which was allowed by the High Court on 04.07.2016. The Court quashed the termination order and directed the District Programme Officer to re-examine his disability in accordance with guidelines issued by the Social Welfare Department. The Court also observed that the petitioner would be entitled to salary “for the period he has worked.”
Pursuant to this, the petitioner was reinstated on 29.05.2017, but was not paid for the intervening period. He then filed another writ in 2018 seeking salary for the termination period. That petition was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to verify if similarly situated teachers had been granted back wages and to take a reasoned decision.
In compliance, the District Education Officer granted the petitioner 50% of his salary for the termination period, citing parity with another teacher, Kamlesh Roy. Dissatisfied, the petitioner again approached the Court seeking full back wages on the ground that another terminated teacher, Ramesh Kumar Suman, had been granted 100% back wages for a similar termination.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to full salary for the period during which he remained terminated.
- Whether the petitioner was similarly situated to another reinstated teacher who had been granted full back wages.
- Whether the prior court orders limited the petitioner’s entitlement to salary only for the period of actual service.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner argued that his termination was wrongful and since the High Court had set it aside, he should be granted full back wages from 01.11.2013 to 28.05.2017. He relied on a similar case of one Mr. Ramesh Kumar Suman, who was also terminated on identical grounds, later reinstated, and granted full salary for the termination period. The petitioner contended that denying him similar treatment was discriminatory and arbitrary.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The State argued that the petitioner’s claim was barred by delay since the impugned order was passed in 2020, but the writ was filed only in 2025. Nevertheless, the State addressed the merits, stating that the petitioner’s entitlement to back wages had already been considered in earlier litigation. Further, unlike in the case of Mr. Suman, the Court in the petitioner’s own previous writ had clearly observed that salary would be payable only for the period he actually worked. Hence, he was not similarly situated to Mr. Suman, who had obtained a different form of relief in his own litigation.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court drew a clear distinction between the two cases. In the petitioner’s case, the earlier judgment dated 04.07.2016 had limited salary entitlement to “the period he has worked.” In contrast, the Court found that no such restriction existed in the case of Mr. Suman — neither in his writ petition nor in his subsequent contempt petition. Therefore, the District Education Officer’s decision granting only 50% salary was in compliance with judicial directions and was not arbitrary or discriminatory.
The Court followed settled legal principles: reliefs in service jurisprudence, especially relating to back wages, depend heavily on the specific wording and observations in prior judicial orders. Where an earlier court restricts salary entitlement to actual working periods, that order binds both the employee and the department.
Precedent Analysis:
The Court relied on its own prior orders in the following cases:
- C.W.J.C. No. 22958 of 2013 (petitioner’s original case): Termination set aside, but salary limited to “period actually worked.”
- C.W.J.C. No. 21687 of 2018: Directed authorities to examine parity claims with similarly situated teachers and decide back wage entitlement within 60 days.
- C.W.J.C. No. 1722 of 2014 and M.J.C. No. 2582 of 2016 (Mr. Ramesh Kumar Suman): No observation limiting salary to “actual work done,” thus permitting grant of full wages.
The difference in relief stemmed not from unequal treatment but from variation in prior court orders and the scope of directions issued therein.
Court’s Reasoning:
Justice Nani Tagia noted that the petitioner’s own case had been clearly adjudicated earlier, and the language of the 2016 judgment was categorical in restricting wages to the period of actual service. Hence, the petitioner could not claim parity with another individual whose judicial orders did not contain similar restrictions.
Since the official decision of 50% salary had been based on that premise and aligned with the directions of the Court, it could not be disturbed. The Court also considered the petitioner’s delayed challenge, though it ultimately dismissed the petition on merits.
Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed. The High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to full back wages for the period he was terminated. The prior judicial direction limited his entitlement strictly to the period of actual employment. As such, he could not draw parity with another teacher whose case did not contain such limitation.
Implications:
The ruling underscores that entitlement to back wages in reinstatement cases is not automatic. Judicial directions in prior litigation are determinative, and courts will not override clear observations limiting such entitlement. This case reinforces the importance of precise relief language in writ proceedings and sets a precedent against blanket parity claims in public employment disputes.
FAQs:
Q1. Can a reinstated government employee claim full salary for the termination period?
Not automatically. It depends on what the court had earlier ruled. If the court limited salary to “actual work,” full back wages cannot be claimed.
Q2. What happens if others in similar positions were paid full salary?
Parity can only be claimed if earlier judicial orders in both cases are identical in scope. If one order limits relief and the other doesn’t, the cases are not similarly situated.
Q3. Does delay in filing the writ matter in such salary claims?
Yes. Courts may decline to entertain delayed claims. However, in this case, the Court still considered the merits but ultimately denied relief.
