The petitioner was initially appointed as Joint City Engineer on July 27, 2012. Following a departmental inquiry initiated via a chargesheet on June 15, 2016, he was found guilty of various charges. Despite these findings, the General Body of the Municipal Corporation rejected the proposed punishment of removal from service on March 17, 2017. Instead, the petitioner was demoted to the position of Executive Engineer on March 22, 2017.

However, the situation took a turn when the General Body later nullified this demotion on April 12, 2017. Following subsequent developments, including a government resolution that rescinded the General Body’s prior decision, the petitioner was ultimately removed from service on October 30, 2017.

Challenging this termination, the petitioner approached the High Court, which, on December 14, 2018, ruled in his favor, remanding the case back to the General Body for reconsideration. The General Body again found in favor of the petitioner on January 19, 2019, leading to his reinstatement on February 5, 2019, albeit at a lower position—Executive Engineer—citing the non-existence of the Joint City Engineer position.

In a subsequent hearing on March 14, 2023, the Court emphasized that reinstatement should reflect the position held prior to any wrongful actions. The petitioner’s legal team argued that reinstating him in a lesser role contradicted the court's directives and the General Body's findings. The Court expressed concerns regarding the implications of this demotion, particularly how it affected the petitioner’s pension and retiral benefits.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that he should have been reinstated as Joint City Engineer, as the order of demotion was effectively void. They cited the government resolution from August 21, 2017, indicating that employees would retain their positions until superannuation unless expressly stated otherwise.

On the other hand, the Municipal Corporation maintained that the petitioner’s reinstatement as Executive Engineer was correct, given his earlier termination and the supposed non-existence of the Joint City Engineer post at the time of reinstatement.

After thorough deliberation, the Court concluded that the order of demotion had been nullified and therefore, the petitioner should be reinstated to the original position he held. The judgment reinforced that administrative decisions cannot undermine legal rights, particularly concerning reinstatement.

Furthermore, the Court noted the equivalence of the positions of Joint City Engineer and Additional City Engineer, asserting that despite the supposed restructuring, the petitioner was entitled to be treated as if he had never been demoted. Thus, the court ordered the Corporation to reinstate him notionally to his former role and to calculate all monetary benefits accordingly.

Entitlement to Wages and Benefits

While the court ruled that the petitioner would not receive back wages prior to his reinstatement in February 2019, he would be entitled to the difference in wages from that date until his superannuation in August 2020. This compensation would include simple interest and recalibrated retiral benefits based on the salary he would have earned as Joint City Engineer.

This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures and the protection of employees’ rights within public service sectors. The Court’s decision not only rectifies the petitioner’s employment status but also ensures he receives fair compensation for the time lost due to administrative missteps. The ruling is a crucial reminder of the legal obligations public bodies hold towards their employees, especially in matters concerning job security and benefits.