Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Kailash Nath Pathak vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Its ... on 23 February, 2023
Author: Abhay S.Oka
Bench: Abhay S. Oka, Rajesh Bindal
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4562 OF 2011
KAILASH NATH PATHAK ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay S.Oka,J.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent- State.
2. An order of compulsory retirement was passed against the appellant on 2nd November, 2000. The appellant challenged the said order by filing a Writ Petition before the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court proceeded to set aside the order of compulsory retirement. However, the High Court restricted back wages to 50% of the wages payable from the date of compulsory retirement. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2023.03.01 16:37:54 IST Reason: 1
3. The issue which survives in this appeal for consideration is whether the High Court could have denied 50% back wages to the appellant. There is no dispute that the appellant has reached the age of superannuation and that 50% back wages payable in terms of the impugned judgment have been paid to him.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon a decision of coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Tapash Kumar Paul v. BSNL & Anr.1 This decision, according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, holds that after passing an order of reinstatement, the normal rule to be followed is to grant full back wages.
5. We have considered the submissions made before us. Tapash Kumar Paul's case, this Court has referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Ors.2 In the said decision, this Court has taken a view that in the very nature of things, there cannot be a straight jacket formula for awarding relief of back wages and the Tribunal will exercise discretion of granting back wages keeping in view all the relevant circumstances. 1 (2014) 4 SCR 875 2 (2013) 10 SCC 324 2
6. It is not in dispute that neither in the Writ Petition filed by the appellant nor in the supplementary affidavit filed on 27th July, 2006 (nearly 5-1/2 years after filing of the Writ Petition), the appellant has come out with a case that from the date of the order of compulsory retirement, he had no source of income. Even in the rejoinder affidavit filed in the Civil Appeal, the said case is not made out.
7. The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has exercised discretion by limiting the prayer for back wages to 50%. In the facts of the case, we do not find any perversity or illegality in exercise of discretion by the High Court. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
..........................J. (ABHAY S.OKA) ..........................J. (RAJESH BINDAL) NEW DELHI;
February 23, 2023.
3
ITEM NO.106 COURT NO.17 SECTION III-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 4562/2011
KAILASH NATH PATHAK Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 23-02-2023 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL For Appellant(s) Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv.
Mr. Dhananjay Garg, Adv.
Mr. Ishaan Tiwari, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. V.K.Shukla, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Chandrika Prasad Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ruchir Ranjan Rai, Adv. Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed non-reportable judgment.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(ANITA MALHOTRA) (NAND KISHOR)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file.) 4