In Brief
A gallery attendant was appointed full-time in 2002 but terminated in 2004 citing a government recruitment freeze. After years of litigation, a Division Bench ordered his reinstatement in 2013. The State instead issued a fresh appointment order in 2013, denying continuity of service. The Supreme Court held that reinstatement must include continuity of service and consequential benefits from the original 2002 appointment. Retrospectively applied recruitment rules and government policies cannot override a validly made appointment or invalidate a binding reinstatement judgment. The appeal was allowed and the appellant reinstated with continuity of service, excluding back wages only for the period he did not actually work.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.