Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING COUNCIL ANJUMAN ARTS, COMMERCE & SCIENCE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SAYYED MOHAMMAD SHAFI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/1996
BENCH:
SINGH N.P. (J)
BENCH:
SINGH N.P. (J)
AHMADI A.M. (CJ)
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (1) 718 JT 1996 (1) 111
1996 SCALE (1)142
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
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.
3565/91. The facts are clearly not in dispute. The service
of the respondent was terminated which order was ultimately
set aside. The order has merged with 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. 1 and the Government will
decide that question according to law
and in the light of the stand taken by
the University.
In the proceedings for contempt, it was held by the
Division Bench that normally 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 that writ, it is not
possible to hold that the refusal to pay the arrears of
salary would be an act of contempt. Setting aside an order
of dismissal creates a cause of action of claim arrears of
salary. But in such case where no direction was given for
the intervening period, payment of salary need not be
ordered, as held by this Court in Managing Direction U.P.
Warehousing Corporation & Ors. vs. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee
[AIR 1980 SC 840].
Thereafter, it would appeal that the respondent had
moved an execution application in the District Court to give
effect to the order of the Tribunal which is envisaged under
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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. 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 is claiming back-wages.
There should be a finding in that behalf. Accordingly, we
held that the respondent is not entitled to the back-wages.
As far as the reinstatement is concerned, it is not
convassed 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 became final.
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 six months from
the date of the receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.