Back
(2009)17SCC659
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. G. Balakrishnan, CJI., P. Sathasivam , J.
State of Punjab and Anr. Appellant
Vs.
Respondent: Surinder Pal Singh and Anr. Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 797 of 2009 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21016 of 2006)
Decided On: 06.02.2009
[Para 5]
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The respondents, by a judgment dated 5th April, 1999 of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, were directed to be appointed in service and the Public Service Commission was to take steps within 30 days for doing so. Thereafter steps were taken by the State and as there was some delay, the respondents again went to the Court for implementation of the order and the appointments were made in September, 2000. As they had to be given appointments from 1998 onwards the notional scale pay was fixed and they were also given the notional increments for belated appointments. The respondents thereafter filed a writ petition claiming that they should be given arrears of salary from the period 1998. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, has directed that as these respondents ought to have been appointed from 1998, the State should pay their salary from 1998 onwards.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State contends that the respondents were appointed only from the year 2000 and so the State may not be directed to pay the salary for the period for which they were not working and, in our opinion, there is no justifiable reason to give salary to these respondents for the period for which they had not worked. The respondents, in any way, are entitled to get their notional increments as they ought to have been appointed from the year 1998 onwards. They were not entitled to salary for the period for which they were not working. Therefore, we set aside the order of the High Court to that extent.
5. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
The doctrine of relation back applies in service matters, allowing for retrospective salary payments to employees whose initial appointments are validated despite previous administrative interruption....
The court established that once government approval for employment is granted, salary payments cannot be unjustly withheld due to management disputes.
Process of judicial interpretation lies in extending or applying by analogy ratio decidendi of an earlier case to a subsequent case which differs from it in certain essentials.
The legal principle established in the judgment is that the policy prevailing at the time of appointment governs the entitlement to pay scale, and the court may consider similar treatment given by th....
Court affirmed the validity of the petitioner's ongoing employment, rejecting claims of illegality due to lack of adverse findings and directing timely payment of due salary.
Claims for service-related arrears are generally limited to three years prior to the filing date of the petition, reflecting principles of delay and laches.
Salary claims in public service are contingent upon the legality of the appointment; illegal appointments do not confer entitlement to salary.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
