Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1829 of 2004
PETITIONER:
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
RESPONDENT:
SHYAM BIHARI LAL GUPTA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/08/2005
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & H.K. SEMA
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
ORDER
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. :
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench.
Factual position in a nutshell is as follows :
Challenging the order of termination passed by the appellant-Corporation,
the respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Employee’) filed a suit for
declaration that the termination is bad. The suit was decreed on
03.05.1987. It was held that the order of termination was void ab-initio
and non est and that the plaintiff-respondent is in continuity of service
of the Corporation. The respondent-employee filed two execution
applications. The first one was for salary for the period from January,
1982 to May, 1987. The subsequent execution application was for salary from
July, 1987 to March, 1988. It is only the legality of the execution
proceedings for the period from April, 1988 to March, 1997 which is in
dispute. According to the appellant-Corporation, there was no direction for
back wages and merely because the plaintiff managed to get some amount by
executing a decree for the previous period, that will not entitle him in
law to get back wages for a period during which he had not worked and there
was nothing in the decree so far as back wages are concerned. The plea was
not accepted by the executing court and the revision petition under Section
115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘the CPC’) was also
rejected by the High Court by the impugned order.
According to learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation, the decree is
absolutely silent so far as the back wages are concerned. The decree in
essence contains only a declaratory relief without any consequential
payment for monetary benefits. That being so, the executing court and the
High Court were not justified in granting the relief sought for. Learned
counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that when the decree
clearly indicated that the termination was illegal non est, as a natural
corollary, the plaintiff was entitled to the back wages.
In an almost identical case, this Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation and Anr. v. Ladulal Mali, [1996] 8 SCC 37 held that the decree
does not contain payment of back wages. Only declaratory relief of the
nature granted in the present case was granted. Further, in A.P.S.R.T.C.
and Anr.
v. S. Narsaguod, [2002] 2 SCC 212, in paragraph-9, this Court held as
follows :
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
"9. We find merit in the submission so made. There is a difference between
an order of reinstatement accompanied by a simple direction for continuity
of service and a direction where reinstatement is accompanied by a specific
direction that the employee shall be entitled to all the consequential
benefits, which necessarily flow from reinstatement or accompanied by a
specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to the benefit of
the increments earning during the period of absence. In our opinion, the
employee after having been held guilty of unauthorized absence from duty
cannot claim the benefit of increments notionally earned during the period
of unauthorized absence in the absence of a specific direction in that
regard and merely because he has been directed to be reinstated with the
benefit of continuity in service."
Of course, the above noted case related to the question of granting
increments notionally. But the principles laid down relating to specific
non-mention about any monetary benefit is relevant. As was noted in the
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation’s case (supra) there was no
decree for grant of any monetary benefits.
Above being the position, the High Court’s order cannot be maintained and
is set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No costs.