Sr. No. 36 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CJ Court Case: LPA No. 97/2024 c/w LPA No. 195/2024 Suresh Kumar Rekhi …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Ayushman Kotwal, Advocate v/s UT of J&K and others …. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE. ORDER 29.05.2025 1. The appellant in LPA No. 97/2024, an employee of the Appellants in LPA No. 195/2024, was appointed against the post of Assistant Manager (Civil) with the Jammu and Kashmir Project Construction Corporation Limited (JKPCCL) in the year 1993. Vide order No. 84 of 2021 dated 29.07.2021, the services of the appellant-employee were terminated on the ground that he had obtained employment on the basis of the fake Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC). The said order of termination was assailed by the appellant-employee through the medium of a writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 1769/2021 on the ground that principle of audi alteram partem was not followed by the appellant(s)-employer/respondents, before terminating his services after 28 long years of entry into the service. Learned 2 Single Judge vide order dated 18.12.2023 disposed of the writ petition preferred by the appellant-employee by quashing the order No. 84 of 2021 dated 29.07.2021 and restoring the service status of the appellant-employee with all consequential benefits, except monetary benefits of salary etc. for the period with effect from 29.07.2021 till passing of the judgment i.e. 18.12.2023. Simultaneously, the appellant(s)/respondents-employer were left free to conduct a de novo disciplinary proceedings against the appellant- employee for his alleged acts of omission and commission by affording due opportunity of hearing to him and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the rules governing the service of the appellant-employee with the appellant(s)/respondents-employer. 2. Both employer and employee have assailed the judgment dated 18.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge by way of two separate Letters Patent Appeals. Appellant(s)-employer in LPA No.195/2024 has/have assailed the judgment passed by the learned writ court primarily on the ground that that protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India was not available to the respondent-employee because his engagement was nullity in the eyes of law as he had gained the employment on the basis of a fake certificate. The appellant-employee in LPA No. 97/2024 has assailed the judgment to the limited extent of denial of monetary benefits to him for the period, he remained out of service i.e. from 20.07.2021 to 18.12.2023. 3. Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant(s)-employer has stated that once the employee obtains employment on the basis of forged documents, no opportunity of hearing is required to be granted to him before terminating his services. 3 4. Mr. Ayushman Kotwal, learned counsel for the appellant-employee has argued that the appellant had not gained the employment on the basis of forged document(PRC) and had the respondents-employer provided an opportunity of hearing to the appellant-employee before passing the order of termination dated 29.07.2021, he would have dislodged the allegations leveled against him. He has further argued that the employee is entitled to monetary benefits for the period, when he remained out of service owing to the illegal action of his employer, but the learned Single Judge has not considered this issue at all. He has further submitted that the appellant is ready to accept reduced wages for the period, he remained out of service. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It goes without saying that the order No. 84 of 2021 dated 29.07.2021 impugned in the writ petition was stigmatic in nature and appellant- employee was turned out of the service after 28 long years of his entry into the employment. It is evident from the order dated 29.07.2021 that the services of the appellant-employee were terminated after considering the cancellation of Permanent Resident Certificates issued in favour of the appellant-employee and his other family members. A communication dated 08.02.2021 from the General Administration Department was received by the Public Works Department and acting on the said communication, the Public Works Department vide communication dated 15.02.2021 directed the J&K PCCL to take necessary action in accordance with the communication of the General Administration Department and acting on that communication only, the services of the appellant-employee were terminated without affording any opportunity of hearing. 4 7. This Court has not even an iota of doubt that the order dated 29.07.2021was issued by the respondents-employer in utter disregard to the principle of ‘audi alteram partem’ and the action of the employer in terminating the services of the appellant-employee, without affording any opportunity of hearing, cannot be countenanced in law. 8. It is contended by the appellant-employee in LPA No. 97/2024 that once an employee is kept out of service by the employer, he is entitled to all the service benefits, including the monetary one, but the learned writ court has not adverted to this issue at all. At the same time, he has submitted that the appellant-employee is ready to accept even reduced wages, however, the said submission was seriously objected to by Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG on the ground that the appellant-employee is not at all entitled to monetary benefits for the period, he remained out of service on the ground of celebrated principle of ‘No Work-No Pay’. 9. It is not in dispute that the learned writ court vide order dated 18.12.2023 has held the appellant-employee entitled to all service benefits, except the monetary benefit of the salary etc. for the period, appellant- employee remained out of service. This is true that there are allegations against the employee but equally true is that he was condemned unheard by the employer. 10. It is settled law that once an employee is kept out of work illegally by the employer without any justification, then he is entitled to wages from the period he was kept out of the service. After examining the record, we found that there were justifiable reasons, with the appellant(s)-employer terminating the services of the appellant-employee as allegations against him 5 are in respect of using fake PRC for obtaining employment but this is also a fact he has been condemned unheard by the appellant-employer.The appellant-employee had not used forged PRC for getting employment but it appears that the PRC issued in favour of appellant was subsequently cancelled. There are diametrically opposite, competing and conflicting interests of employer & employee and both are right in their own perspectives. 11. The proper balance is required to be maintained while considering the competing and conflicting interests of the employer and the employee. In order to maintain proper balance in respect of conflicting and competing interests, this court is of the considered view that grant of 50% of the monetary benefits for the period, appellant-employee remained out of service would secure the ends of justice. 12. Viewed thus, for what has been said and discussed above, LPA No. 195/2024 preferred by the appellant(s)-employer is dismissed and LPA No. 97/2024 preferred by the appellant-employee is allowed to the extent that the appellant-employee is held entitled to 50% of the monetary benefits from 29.07.2021 till the date of judgment of the writ court i.e. 18.12.2023. 13. Disposed of. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Jammu 29.05.2025 Karam Chand/Secy. Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No KARAM CHAND 2025.06.12 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document