CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2017 › Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Rathunath Bhagwan Sa

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Rathunath Bhagwan Satpal

Supreme Court of India · 27 February 2017

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
27 February 2017
Case no.
C.A. No. 3361 of 2017
Bench
Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

JUDGMENT

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3361 OF 2017 [ARISING FROM SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.21823/2015] HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

RAGHUNATH BHAGWAN SATPAL RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant/corporation is before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 13.04.2015 directing the appellant/corporation to reinstate and continue the respondent in service, however, without back wages but with all other service benefits.

3. Thanks to the gracious cooperation rendered by Shri J.P. Cama, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, we are able to find a solution to the whole issue.

4. It is submitted that the respondent is willing to work in any vacancy of a Class IV employee in a place anywhere near to Sholapur, on account of his health problem, in case his pay is protected.

5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant, on instruction, submits that the appellant/corporation, can, as a special case, accommodate him in Pune.

6. The respondent be accommodated in a Class IV vacancy, protecting his pay and all other service benefits, without back wages, and is permitted to continue in service but work in a Class IV post in Pune. On receipt of the appointment and transfer order, as above, which is to be issued in two weeks, the respondent will report for duty within two weeks.

7. We also make it clear that in case there arises any Class IV vacancy in Sholapur, he shall be considered for accommodation there.

JUDGMENT

8. The impugned order is set aside and this appeal is disposed of, as above. Question of law is kept open.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

10. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH] .......................J. [R. BANUMATHI] NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 27, 2017.

Ask CaseMinister about Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Rathunath Bhagwan Satpal

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp