Top Court Comes To Rescue Of Man Terminated Twice By UP Government

The top court held that the subsequent change in law does not have the effect of reversing all the decisions made prior to the fresh view taken by a court of law.

a rare instance, the Supreme Court has come to the rescue of a man belonging to the Scheduled Caste category whose services were terminated twice by the Uttar Pradesh government owing to a dispute over his caste certificate.

The top court held that the subsequent change in law does not have the effect of reversing all the decisions made prior to the fresh view taken by a court of law.

The Supreme Court in 2013 had upheld an Allahabad High Court order by which Vijay Shankar was reinstated to service with all consequential benefits, holding him as a member of SC category after state government had withdrawn its appeal following a lengthy hearing.

The Uttar Pradesh government, however, in 2015 again dismissed him from service, saying a larger bench of the high court has taken a different view and his caste does not fall under the Schedule Caste category.

Vijay Shankar, who belongs to the 'Kasera' community, a sub-caste of 'Shilpkars' which is a SC category notified under the constitution, challenged the decision once again before the Allahabad High Court, but it dismissed his plea saying that the law has now been changed by a larger bench of the top court.

A bench of justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao said the high court in its judgment, dated August 12, 2015, has completely "misappreciated and misapplied the law".

"The difference between a superior court reversing a decision, which is in appeal before itself, and overruling the view is well known," it said.

The top court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to immediately release the withheld pension and other retirement benefits of Shankar, who superannuated from the post of assistant prosecution officer during his second termination period.

The court, while allowing the appeal of Shankar, set aside the high court order of August 2015, rejecting his plea and his dismissal order of June 15, 2015.

"If a point is settled inter-parties and there is a subsequent change in the law because the court takes a different view, the change in a law does not have the effect of unsettling the rights settled earlier. 

"The subsequent change in a law does not have the effect of reversing all the decisions made prior to the fresh view," the bench said.