Supreme Court of India

CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING COUNCIL ANJUMAN ARTS, COMMERCE & SCIENCE & ORS.versusSAYYED MOHAMMAD SHAFI

Citation: 1996 INSC 29
Decided: 8 January 1996
Disposal: Disposed off
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG B PATTANAIK

Holding

The respondent is not entitled to back wages for the intervening period but is entitled to salary from the date of reinstatement.

Summary

The respondent, a government employee, was terminated from service, an order later set aside, leading to a claim for reinstatement and back wages. The Supreme Court examined whether the respondent was entitled to salary for the intervening period during which he was gainfully employed elsewhere, and whether he could claim arrears of salary pending reinstatement. Relying on the principle that arrears accrue only when the employee is not gainfully employed and on the precedent in Managing Director U.P. Warehousing Corp. v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, the Court held that no back wages were payable for the intervening period. However, the Court affirmed the respondent's right to receive the salary from the date of reinstatement, directing payment within six months. Other consequential benefits were left to be determined in accordance with the Tribunal's judgment upheld by the Court.

Issues considered

Whether a terminated employee whose dismissal is set aside is entitled to back wages for the period he was gainfully employed elsewhere.
Whether the employee is entitled to salary from the date of reinstatement in the absence of a specific order for arrears of salary.
Whether the execution of the Tribunal's order for arrears can be refused without a clear direction.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedures. 115

Subjects

termination of servicereinstatementback wagesarrears of salaryservice lawgainful employmentexecution of tribunal order

Judgment

CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING COUNCIL ANJUMAN ARTS, A
COMMERCE & SCIENCE & ORS.
I'
v.
SAYYED MOHAMMAD SHAFI

- JANUARY 8, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
B

Service Law :

Termination o.f service--Reinstatenient-No spec~fic order .for payment
(Jf arrears of salary for intervening period--Employee gainfully employed c
duri11g that period-Held, not entitled to back wages-Admitted salary from
date of reinstatement ordered to be paid--Other consequential ben~fits-To be
worked out in the light of the Tribunal's judgment upheld by the Superme Court.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1662of1996.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 29. I0.92 of the Karnataka High
Court in C.R. No. 3565 of 1991.

K.N. Bhat, R. Jagannatha Coulay and M.K. Dua for the Appellants./

Shantha Kr. Mahale and P. Mahale, for the Respondent. E
The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Delay condoned.

Leave granted. •
F
We have heard the counsel for both the parties. This appeal is directed
·against the order of the Civil Judge, Bijapur passed on October 29, 1991 and
confirmed by the High Court in the impugned order made on 5.4.1993 in CRP
No. 3565191. The facts are clearly not in dispute. The service of the respondent
was terminated which order was ulti,nately set aside. The order has merged with G
dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court on July 31, 1989. This Court
·'"" observed thus :

"The Management may move the Government for reimbursement of
the salary paid to respondent No. I and the Government will decide
that question according to law.and in the light of the stand taken by the H
205
/'
j

206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] l S.C.R.

A University."

In the proceedings for co~tempt, it was held by the Division Bench that
nonnally the arrears of salary accrue to a person whose termination of service
is set aside, but payment depends upon other factors as well. In the absence of
a clear direction while issuing the writ, it is not possible to hold that the refusal
B to pay the arrears of salary would be an act of contempt. Setting aside an order
of dismissal creates a cause of action to claim arrears of salary. But in such case
where no direction Was given for the intervening pe1iod, payment of salary need
not be ordered, as held by this Court in Managing Direclor U.P. Warehousing
CmJ>oration & Ors. v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, AIR 1980 SC 840.
c Thereafter, it would appear that the respondent had moved an execution
application !n the District Court to give effect to the order of the Tribunal which
is envisaged under the Rules. Since the executing Court rejected the claim, the
respondent went in revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure
which was dismissed in the impugned order dated April 5, 1993 in CMP No.
D 3565/91 by the Karnataka High Court. Pending the special leave petition, an
enquiry whether the respondent was gainfully employed was conducted and it
was found that he was gainfully employed.

It is contended by the counsel for the respondent that this appeal has
become infructuous. We cannot conclude on that premise since the respondent
E is claiming back-wages. There should be a finding in that behalf. Accordingly,
we hold that the respondent is not entitled to the back-wages. As far as the
reinstatement is concerned, it is not canvassed by the learned counsel for the
appellant that he is not entitled for the reinstatement due to the fact that the
order of dismissal was set aside and had become final.
F
The respondent is entitled to the payment of admitted salary from the date
of reinstatement. We do not propose to express any opinion on other consequential
benefits since the same is to be worked out in the light of the judgment of the
Tribunal which was upheld by this Court. If the admitted salary from the date
of reinstatement is not paid, the same is directed to be paid within a period of
G six months from the date of the receipt of this order.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

G.N. Appeal disposed of.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "termination of service"Sign in to search