Supreme Court's 'Continue Services' Direction Implies Continuity but Not Arrears: Delhi High Court Interprets Reinstatement Order, Grants Pay Refixation But Denies Back Wages

1. Case Snapshot

Case Name: Gaurav Kumar vs High Court Of Delhi, Through Its Registrar General & Ors

Citation: W.P.(C) 10731/2025

High Court: High Court of Delhi

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Date of Judgment: 1st July, 2026

Area of Law: Service Law, Constitutional Law, Reinstatement, Continuity of Service, Back Wages

2. Judgment in Brief

The Delhi High Court partly allowed a writ petition filed by a temporary chauffeur who was terminated from service and later reinstated by the Supreme Court with a direction to "continue the services" of the petitioner. The petitioner sought continuity of service from the date of his initial appointment in 2013, along with arrears of salary, emoluments, seniority, and promotions. The Court held that the Supreme Court's direction to "continue the services" necessarily implied continuity of service for the purpose of probation and pay fixation. However, the Court rejected the claim for arrears of salary for the period between termination and reinstatement, as the Supreme Court had not declared the termination illegal and had granted reinstatement ex debito justitiae (as a matter of grace). The Court directed that the petitioner's pay be refixed treating him as having continued in service, but denied back wages, promotions during probation, and expressed no opinion on seniority. The Court also held that withdrawal of the miscellaneous application from the Supreme Court did not bar the present writ petition.

3. Relevant Facts

Appointment and Termination

• The petitioner was appointed as a Temporary Chauffeur in the Delhi High Court with effect from 14.06.2013.

• He continued on probation without being confirmed.

• On 10.02.2016, the competent Committee decided to terminate his services under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1985, on the ground that he had failed to complete his probation successfully due to several complaints.

• His services were terminated vide Office Order dated 04.03.2016.

Litigation History

• The petitioner challenged the termination by way of WP (C) 2115/2018, which was dismissed on 13.08.2018.

• Review Petition 354/2018 was also dismissed on 26.10.2018.

• The petitioner filed SLP (C) 1871/2019 before the Supreme Court.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.