Can the State Government deny a person, who was earlier dismissed from service, his right over the past services rendered by him after his reinstatement? This question has been raised by one A. Shahul Hameed of Ponnaiyarajapuram in Coimbatore district, before the Madras High Court.
Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar has admitted the petition and ordered notice to the authorities.
In the petition, Mr. Hameed said nine months after a High Court order, an order was issued reinstating him in service. This was just 12 days prior to his retirement. The reinstatement order also said he should join duty immediately and that he had no right over any future claims that would be detrimental to the process relating to the earlier writ petition.
The petitioner submitted he was appointed a Junior Assistant in 1977 in the Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department. Due to sudden illness, he went on earned leave for four months in 1985. Later, he went on leave on loss of pay for a year and again on unearned leave on medical certificate for a month and a half due to persistent illness. He applied for unearned leave on loss of pay for a year from February 1989, but it was neither allowed nor rejected by the department.
In view of the department's attitude, he gave his willingness to rejoin duty in August 1990 for which there was no reply or posting order. Instead, a charge was framed against him that he had absented himself beyond the period for which he was granted leave. He was removed from service in January 1991.
On an appeal, the department Special Commissioner set aside the dismissal and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry stating that the petitioner was not given a personal hearing. He alleged that the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry ex-parte. Later, he was dismissed. This was confirmed by the government. On his writ petition, the High Court in January 2010 set aside the dismissal order, remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner to be considered afresh in the light of a G.O. of August 2000. Nine months after the court order, the department issued an order dated October 19 reinstating him as Assistant in which the conditions were imposed.
He rejoined duty on October 25. He was issued a charge memo the same date. He was retired from service from October 31. He prayed the court to quash the October 19 order and a consequent direction to extend all benefits.