2008 Supreme(SC) 1045

2008(5) Supreme 224
Supreme Court of india
(From Bombay High Court)
C.K. Thakker and D.K. Jain, JJ.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Reshma Ramesh Meher & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4330 of 2008
[Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.7306 of 2007]
Decided on : 11-07-2008

Important Point
Payment of back wages is independent of reinstatement.

Headnote:(a)Administrative Law – Appellant’s inaction on respondents’ representations for reinstatement pursuant to appellate authority’s order dated 13th July, 1993 cannot be held out against the respondents – Hence, High Court was justified in holding that as on 7th December, 1994, the respondents were deemed to be in service and, therefore Government Resolution dated 15th June, 1995 was clearly applicable in their cases. (Para 16)

       (b)Service Law – Back wages – True that once the order of termination of service of an employee is set aside, ordinarily the relief of reinstatement is available to him – However, that does not necessarily result in payment of full or partial back-wages, which is independent of reinstatement – While dealing with the prayer of back-wages, factual scenario, equity and good conscious, a number of other factors, like the manner of selection; nature ofappointment; the period for which the employee has worked with the employer etc.; have to be kept in view - In the instant fact-scenario, respondents not held to be entitled to back wages. (Para 18)

       (2005) 5 SCC 591; (2006) 9 SCC 434; (2006) 1 SCC 479; (2006)7 SCC 180 – Relied upon.

       (c)Judicial Review – Delay and laches – Non-disclosure of the Caste Scrutiny Committee’s Report dated 23/27th March, 1996 by the respondents before the Tribunal is tantamount to suppression of material and vital information from the Court, bordering fraud – Further there was a delay of three years in challenging the impugned order – Respondents not entitled to back wages. (Para 20)

       (1994) 1 SCC 1; (2003) 8 SCC 311; (1889) 14 AC 337 – Relied upon.

       (1994) 6 SCC 241 – Referred.

       Facts of the case:

       1.Pursuant to the applications filed in the year 1980, appellant No.4 issued caste certificates to the respondents declaring them to be belonging to “Mahadeo Koli”, a Scheduled Tribe. On the strength of the caste certificates, the respondents appeared in the competitive examination held by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, for recruitment to the post of Clerk under the reserved category of Scheduled Tribes. They were appointed to the said posts with effect from 21st May, 1982.

       2.However, vide letter dated 26th August, 1986, the General Administrative Department of appellant No.1 asked the respondents to get their caste certificates verified.

       3.By order dated 12th July, 1992, appellant No.4 cancelled the caste certificates issued to the respondents and issued memorandums to the respondents, informing them that their services will stand terminated on completion of one month from the date of issue of the memorandums.

       4.On appeal, the Divisional Commissioner, appellant No.3 herein, quashed and set aside the order passed by appellant No.4, cancelling the caste certificates. Despite this the respondents were not reinstated.

       5.The respondents filed original applications (O.A. Nos. 920 and 921 of 1993) before the Tribunal, challenging the termination of their services. The Tribunal, by a common order dated 15th December, 1997, held that in the light of order dated 13th July, 1993 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, setting aside order dated 12th July, 1992 passed by appellant No.4, the memorandums terminating the services of the respondents, did not survive. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside memorandums/orders dated 5th January, 1993 and directed reinstatement of the respondents, treating their absence from the date oftermination to the date of reinstatement as extra-ordinary leave.

       6.In the meanwhile the Caste Scrutiny Committee, vide their orders dated 27th March, 1996 and 23rd March, 1996 cancelled the caste certificates issued to respondents No.1 and 2 respectively.

       7.On 17th February, 1998, the respondents filed contempt applications (No.11 and 12 of 1998)before the Tribunal against the appellants.

       8.Prior to that, on 13th January, 1998, appellant No.1 and the Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department had filed two review applications (No.7 and 8 of 1998) for recall of order dated 15th December, 1997. The Tribunal vide order dated 3rd April, 1998, allowed the review applications; set aside its order dated 15th December, 1997 (in O.A. Nos. 920 and 921 of 1993) and dismissed the contempt applications preferred by the respondents.

       9.Aggrieved, the respondents challenged Tribunal’s order dated 3rd April, 1998 in the High Court. The High Court, by the impugned order, has set aside the order dated 3rd April, 1998, passed by the Tribunal in review applications and has confirmed Tribunal’s original order dated 15th December, 1997.

       Findings of the Court :

       For the lapse on the part of the respondents in not bringing the Caste Scrutiny Committee’s report to the knowledge of the Tribunal and delay of three years in challenging the impugnmed order, they are not entitled to back wages.

       Result : Appeal partly allowed.