No Reinstatement

 

 

By Adv. R. S. Agrawal 

 

IN THE judgement of the case –K J Somaiya Medical College and Research Centre & Another v Maharashtra University of Health Sciences & others etc., delivered on May 19, 2023, Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, at the Supreme Court have stated that though, they cannot find fault with the impugned judgement and order of the Bombay High Court division bench of April 17, 2007, as far as the reinstatement of the 3 Lecturers is concerned, but instead, the SC moulded the relief by directing the appellants (employer) to pay compensation amounts to these three – Lecturers, Rs 11 lakh to Dr Medha V. Joshi, Rs 7,20,000/- to Anjali Khavnekar and Rs 7,10,000/- to Dr Smita Karandikar, in lieu of reinstatement. On February 22, 2023, the SC has directed these 3 lecturers to file affidavits on the four aspects set out in the said order. These aspects were: Whether they had secured any employment either on contract or otherwise after June 21, 2004; 2. If they were in employment, the details of their employment; 3. They shall also disclose the emoluments received by them during the course of their employment either on contract or otherwise, if any; and 4. Whether they have reached the age of superannuation. Pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court, these lecturers filed their affidavits and the appellants filed their response to the said affidavits.

In paragraph 6 of the impugned judgement and order of the Bombay High Court, it is clearly recorded that the appellants agreed that the said three lecturers were duly qualified in terms of the Rules existing at the time of their respective appointments and that the 3rd respondent-the Medical Council of India permitted them to do the teaching job till the Medical College was affiliated to the 1st respondent-University in the year 1998. As this was a clear concession made by the appellants themselves, the HC was right in not accepting the contention of the appellants that their appointments were void ab initio.

While directing the appellants to implement the recommendations of the Grievance Redressal Committee, liberty was granted to the appellants to make a fresh representation to the 3rd respondent-the Medical Council of India for pointing out that the said three lecturers were teaching from the years 1991-92 and 1992-93 and therefore, the said Regulations of 1998 would not apply to them. The HC reserved the remedy to the appellants to approach the HC, in the event, the Medical Council of India does not grant recognition. Therefore, per se, the Court did not find any error in the impugned judgement and order of the High Court.

Now, the question is whether, at this stage, relief of reinstatement with consequential benefits can be granted. It is necessary to peruse the affidavits filed by the three lecturers. Dr Medha V Joshi filed an affidavit stating that she would have attained the age of superannuation at the age of 62 years on July 31, 2010. She claimed that after June 21, 2004, when her appointment was terminated, she never secured any employment. According to her, at the time of termination, her salary was Rs 14,880/- per month. Her contention is that by the time, she would have attained the age of superannuation, her salary would have been approximately Rs 1,80,000/- per month. The appellants have responded by filing an affidavit, in which it was accepted that her employment was terminated with effect from June 21, 2004. According to their stand, the said lecturer would have retired on July 31, 2011. Annexure –A to the said affidavit discloses that at the time of her termination her monthly salary was Rs 16,474/- and at the time of her superannuation her salary would have been Rs 43,566/-. As regards Mrs Anjali Khavnekar, she has stated in her affidavit that from June 21, 2004, till January 2, 2005, she was not employed.

She took up employment from January 3, 2005 as an Educational counsellor. She was employed till September 30, 2021. She has stated that in the Financial year 2005-2006, her annual salary was Rs 1,26,000/-, which was increased to Rs 8,30, 781/- in the Financial year 2021-22. According to her, she would have attained the age of superannuation on July 31, 2023. In response, the appellants stated that the said lecturer would have retired at the end of February, 2023. Her monthly salary at the time of her termination was Rs 15,476/- and by February, 2023, her salary would have been Rs 1,13,773/- per month. The case of Smita Karandikar, according to her is that she did not take up any employment for a period of six months from the date of her termination. According to her, she would have attained the age of superannuation on April 30, 2019.

The SC has pointed out that the stand of the respondent-Medical Council of India, all along, is that the said 3 lecturers were not qualified to teach in the Medical College. Considering the passage of time and stand of the Respondent –Medical Council of India, The SC is of the view that it will not be appropriate at this stage to grant reinstatement. Moreover, after June 21, 2004 till date, none of these 3 lecturers have worked as a teacher. The impugned judgement is based on a concession by the appellants that on the date of appointment, the said 3 lecturers were qualified. The appellants did not comply with the impugned judgement. Therefore, the Supreme Court is of the view that reasonable compensation will have to be granted to these lecturers in lieu of their reinstatement in exercise of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

In addition to the amount of compensation ordered by the SC, these lecturers would be also entitled to the costs of the petitions quantified at Rs 50,000/- each. The amounts are ordered to be paid within two months from the date of the judgement. On failure to do so, these amounts will carry interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the judgement till the payment is made. The appeals have been disposed of by the Supreme Court with these directions.