JUDGMENT
R.P. Vyas, J.
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the respondents be directed to fix their salary by counting their services from the date of initial appointment i.e. 1.7.99 as if their services were never terminated and respondents be directed to pay arrears of salary from the date of re-appointment consequent upon fixation of their salary and the respondents may further be directed to assign seniority to the petitioners from the date of initial appointment i.e. 1.7.99.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued by the District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Jalore inviting applications for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III. The petitioners also applied for the same and on being selected they were appointed in different Panchayat Samities. Pursuant to their appointments the petitioners joined duties on 1.7.99. However, the services of the petitioners were terminated on the ground of non-receipt of verification of degrees of B.Ed. from the concerned Education Institution. Against their termination order the petitioners filed writ petitions No. 2981/99, 2968/99, 3023/99, 3956/99, 3021/99, 3027/99 and 2913/99 respectively. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners were allowed vide judgment dated 13.9.2000 directing the District Establishment Committee to re-examine the whole case and in case verification of B.Ed. degrees of the petitioners have been received, the termination orders of the petitioners may be withdrawn and the petitioners may be reappointed with notional consequential benefits.
3. It has also been averred by the petitioners that in compliance of the order of this Hon’ble Court the petitioners were taken back in service after verification of their degrees. The petitioners were posted in the Panchayat Samiti, Sayla.
4. The main grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that in terms of the directions of this Court the orders of termination were required to be withdrawn, if the verification of degrees of the petitioners is received and only notional benefits have been ordered to be given. Therefore, for all the purposes except the payment of arrears of salary the petitioners were required to be treated as continuous in service and as a result thereof, they were entitled for fixation of their pay as seniority from the date of initial appointment. However, by mis-interpreting the order of this Court the petitioners have been given fresh appointments without giving notional benefits of pay fixation and seniority in terms of decision of this Court. Hence, this writ petition.
5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that this Court has directed reappointment of the petitioner after receipt of verification of their degrees. The reappointment would amount to fresh appointment, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of seniority and pay fixation from the date of their initial appointment i.e. 1.7.99. Hence, this writ petition be dismissed.
6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and examined and scanned the material available on record.
7. Admittedly, the petitioners were initially appointed in the year 1999 on the post of Teacher Gr. III and they joined their duties on 1.7.99. The services of the petitioners were terminated on the ground of non-receipt of verification of their B.Ed. Degree. Against their termination the petitioners filed writ petitions before this Court, which were disposed of with the direction to the respondents to reappoint the petitioners, in case the verification of their degrees is received from the concerned institution.
8. In my considered opinion, the interpretion of judgment of this Court as made by the respondents is absolutely incorrect. This Court gave categoric direction for reappointment of the petitioners with all notional benefits, accruable to the petitioners on account of withdrawal of termination order. Once the respondents have withdrawn the order of termination of services of the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to reinstatement from the date of the termination and their services will be continued from the date of initial appointment, as if the services of the petitioners were never terminated. The intent of this Curt was also the same as this Court has positively observed that on the reappointment the petitioners would get notional consequential benefits, meaning thereby the petitioners will be given the benefit of seniority and fixation of their pay from the date of their Initial appointment. However, the actual payment will be made on the date the petitioners were reappointed/reinstated. Therefore, for all purposes except the payment of arrears of salary, the petitioners were required to be treated as continued in service.
9. The interpretation of the word ‘reappointment’ made by the respondents is absolutely misconceived. The word ‘reappointment’ would be read in light of over-all directions given by this Court and this Court in positive terms directed to reappoint the petitioner with notional consequential benefits, meaning thereby this Court has also in mind the past services rendered by the petitioner and the services of the petitioners were required to be counted from the date of initial appointment for the purpose of seniority and pay fixation except the payment of actual salary.
10. For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to fix the salary of the petitioners and assign seniority to the petitioners from the date of initial appointment i.e. 1.7.99. The respondents are also directed to pay arrears of salary from the date of reappointment, consequent upon fixation of their salary notionally while counting their services from the date of their initial appointment.
11. No order as to costs.
