Fired for being ‘overqualified’? Madhya Pradesh High Court reinstates disabled woman nearly a decade after termination

Madhya Pradesh High Court news: The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently set aside the termination of a disabled woman employed as a peon in a district judiciary establishment, observing that the removal order was stigmatic and passed without giving her an opportunity of hearing.

A bench of Justices Vivek Rusia and Pradeep Mittal allowed the plea and directed that she be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits, though without back wages.

Justices Vivek Rusia and Pradeep Mittal noted that the petitioner was terminated from service in 2016.

“The impugned order is stigmatic, and no opportunity of hearing was given to her before passing the same,” the order dated March 6 read.

What was the case?

• The appellant, a disabled person, was appointed as a peon on a contingency-paid basis against a reserved post for handicapped persons at collector rates.
• She later applied for permission to pursue higher qualifications.
• However, in January 2016, a chargesheet was issued to her alleging that she had suppressed her 10+2 educational qualification in her application form, even though the post required only an 8th pass qualification, which the department treated as misconduct.
• In response, the appellant contended that the application form had only a single column requiring details of Class 8, including the name of the school, year, marks and result, and there was no provision to disclose qualifications of Class 10 or 12.
• Therefore, she argued that there was no suppression of higher qualifications.
• The authorities terminated her services in June 2016, citing irregular work and lack of punctuality.
• Being aggrieved by the order, she approached the high court.

‘Order unsustainable’

• The respondents have filed a reply to justify the impugned order.
• It is correct that there was only one column to disclose the name of the school, year, marks and result of only Class 8. Therefore, the allegation is incorrect that she suppressed her higher qualification.
• So far as the allegations of unsatisfactory working and lack of punctuality are concerned, there was only one letter written by the 7th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur.
• On one hand, the judge was appreciative of her conduct and behaviour, but expected improvement and punctuality in her work. This became the basis for the administrative committee of the district court’s establishment not to recommend her continuance in the service.
• The chargesheet was also issued to the petitioner, but the departmental inquiry was not completed.
• During the pendency of the departmental inquiry, the letter written by the 7th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, became the basis for her non-continuance of her appointment, and she was removed from the services.
• The chargesheet was issued on the ground that she suppressed her educational qualification, but the termination was on the ground that there was no improvement in her work, although she was a contingency funds paid employee.
• Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable in law.

Court’s direction

• The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is to be taken back into the service with all consequences. However, she will not be entitled to back wages.

What are back wages?

Back wages are monetary compensation owed to employees for work performed but not properly paid, or for earnings lost due to unlawful actions, like wrongful termination or suspension. They cover salary, benefits, and bonuses not paid on time. In cases of illegal dismissal, back wages aim to restore the employee’s financial position.