Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.42 seconds)Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan And Anr. vs S.C. Sharma on 11 January, 2005
9. In so far as grant salary from 02.06.1997 till attaining the age
of retirement with 18% or 24% interest, as the case may be, as
claimed by the Applicant in this OA, we may state that quashing of
the orders restraining an employee from discharging normal duties,
RAVI KUMAR
2025.08.08 14:15:27
+05'30'
9 O.A.No. 260/00025 of 2019
by way of punishment of dismissal/removal/resignation, the
employee concerned is not automatically entitled to back wages is
the law of the land - rather it is necessary for the employee
concerned to plead and prove with the aid of evidence that after any
of the order as stated above keeping away him/her from service
he/she was not gainfully employed anywhere and had no earnings to
maintain himself or his family. There cannot be any quarrel with the
aforesaid proposition of law and this view is supported by the ratio
of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another vs. S.C.Sharma,
(2005) 2 SCC 363 and Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Jaipur vs. Phool Chand (dead) through legal
representatives, (2018) 18 SCC 299. Whereas, nowhere in the
present OA or even rejoinder it is the case that after acceptance of
her resignation she was not gainfully employed anywhere and had
no earnings to maintain himself or his family. No evidence has also
been filed by the applicant to the above effect. Rather, we find that
the observation of this Bench in earlier case filed by Late Dr.
Mohanty that she has been earning her livelihood out of private
RAVI KUMAR
2025.08.08 14:15:27
+05'30'
10 O.A.No. 260/00025 of 2019
practice and contested the Assembly Election as an independent
candidate remained untouched in absence of any challenge by the
applicant before any higher forum or getting it reviewed as per
Rules.
Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Phool Chand (D) Through Lrs. on 20 September, 2018
9. In so far as grant salary from 02.06.1997 till attaining the age
of retirement with 18% or 24% interest, as the case may be, as
claimed by the Applicant in this OA, we may state that quashing of
the orders restraining an employee from discharging normal duties,
RAVI KUMAR
2025.08.08 14:15:27
+05'30'
9 O.A.No. 260/00025 of 2019
by way of punishment of dismissal/removal/resignation, the
employee concerned is not automatically entitled to back wages is
the law of the land - rather it is necessary for the employee
concerned to plead and prove with the aid of evidence that after any
of the order as stated above keeping away him/her from service
he/she was not gainfully employed anywhere and had no earnings to
maintain himself or his family. There cannot be any quarrel with the
aforesaid proposition of law and this view is supported by the ratio
of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another vs. S.C.Sharma,
(2005) 2 SCC 363 and Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Jaipur vs. Phool Chand (dead) through legal
representatives, (2018) 18 SCC 299. Whereas, nowhere in the
present OA or even rejoinder it is the case that after acceptance of
her resignation she was not gainfully employed anywhere and had
no earnings to maintain himself or his family. No evidence has also
been filed by the applicant to the above effect. Rather, we find that
the observation of this Bench in earlier case filed by Late Dr.
Mohanty that she has been earning her livelihood out of private
RAVI KUMAR
2025.08.08 14:15:27
+05'30'
10 O.A.No. 260/00025 of 2019
practice and contested the Assembly Election as an independent
candidate remained untouched in absence of any challenge by the
applicant before any higher forum or getting it reviewed as per
Rules.
1