DB grants relief to Ex- JKPCCL employee, awards 50 pc back wages; dismisses Govt’s appeal

STATE TIMES NEWS

JAMMU: In a significant judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu, comprising the Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal, the Court granted partial relief to Suresh Kumar Rekhi, a former Assistant Manager (Civil) with the Jammu and Kashmir Project Construction Corporation Limited (JKPCCL), who had been dismissed from service on the allegation of having secured employment using a fake Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC).
Suresh Kumar Rekhi was appointed as Assistant Manager (Civil) in JKPCCL in 1993. However, after nearly 28 years of service, his employment was terminated vide Order No. 84 of 2021 dated July 29, 2021 by the employer on grounds that he had secured the job using a fake PRC.
The termination was made following a communication from the General Administration Department dated February 8, 2021, which was subsequently acted upon by the Public Works Department.
The appellant-employee challenged the termination in WP(C) No. 1769/2021, arguing that the termination was made without granting him an opportunity to be heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice and specifically the doctrine of “audi alteram partem”.
On December 18, 2023, a Single Judge quashed the termination order and restored Rekhi’s service with all consequential benefits-except for monetary benefits (salary and allowances) from July 29, 2021 to December 18, 2023. The Court also granted liberty to the employer to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law.
Subsequently, both the employee and employer filed separate Letters Patent Appeals.
LPA No. 97/2024 filed by Suresh Kumar Rekhi through counsel Ayushman Kotwal, challenging the denial of monetary benefits during the period of termination while LPA No. 195/2024, filed by the UT of Jammu & Kashmir and JKPCCL, represented by Ravinder Gupta, Additional Advocate General, challenging the quashing of the termination on the ground that the appointment itself was void ab initio due to alleged forgery.
After hearing both sides and perusing the records, the Division Bench delivered a nuanced verdict on May 29, 2025.
The Bench unequivocally held that termination without affording an opportunity of hearing violated fundamental legal principles, especially when the termination was stigmatic in nature and ended a career spanning nearly three decades.
The Court observed that the employer acted solely on departmental communication without providing Rekhi a chance to respond to the allegation regarding the PRC. This, the Court said, rendered the action legally untenable.
The Bench also noted that while there were credible allegations about Rekhi using a subsequently cancelled PRC, there was no finding that he had personally forged or misrepresented documents. The PRC may have been valid when issued and only later cancelled.
Recognizing both the employer’s position and the employee’s hardship, the Court struck a balance. It ruled that Suresh Kumar Rekhi shall be entitled to 50 per cent of the back wages for the period from July 29, 2021 to December 18, 2023-partially allowing LPA No. 97/2024.
LPA No. 195/2024 filed by the employer was dismissed, affirming the Single Judge’s order to reinstate the employee with liberty to initiate de novo proceedings. The matter has now been disposed of by the Court.